Federation Of Cental Govt. Sc/St ... vs Union Of India
2021 Latest Caselaw 21590 Ker

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                               PRESENT
        THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
 TUESDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021 / 11TH KARTHIKA, 1943
                     WP(C) NO. 8936 OF 2010
PETITIONER:
          FEDERATION OF CENTAL GOVT. SC/ST EMPLOYE
          EMPLOYEES (KERALA STATE),, COCHIN PORT TRUST, REP.
          BY ITS SECRETARY,, SRI.RENJIT KUMAR K.R.,
          ACCOUNTANT, STATISTICAL &, RESEARCH OFFICE, COCHIN
          PORT TRUST,, COCHIN-9.
          BY ADV SRI.KALEESWARAM RAJ

RESPONDENTS:

    1       UNION OF INDIA
            REP. BY SECRETARY TO GOVENRNMENT,, MINISTRY OF
            SURFACE TRANSPORT, NEW DELHI.
    2       COCHIN PORT TRUST
            REP. BY THE CHAIRMAN,, COCHIN PORT TRUST,
            WILLINGTON ISLAND,, KOCHI-682 009.
    3       BOARD OF TRUSTEES
            COCHIN PORT TRUST,, REP. BY CHAIRMAN, COCHIN PORT
            TRUST,, WILLINGTON ISLAND, KOCHI.
    4       THE CHAIRMAN
            COCHIN PORT TRUST,, WILLINGTON ISLAND, KOCHI.
    5       THE SECRETARY
            COCHIN PORT TRUST,, WILLINGTON ISLAND, KOCHI.
    6       THE DEPUTY SECRETARY(ESTATE)
            COCHIN PORT TRUST,, WILLINGTON ISLAND, KOCHI.
    7       DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER
            COCHIN PORT TRUST,, CHIEF ENGINEER'S OFFICE,,
            WILLINGTON ISLAND, KOCHI.
    8       THE ESTATE MANAGER
            COCHIN PORT TRUST,, WILLINGTON ISLAND, KOCHI.
    9       DESK OFFICER(LABOUR)
            MINISTRY OF SHIPPING(PORT WING),, NEW DELHI.
            BY ADVS.
            ASSISTANT SOLICITOR GENERAL
            SRI.K.ANAND A.201
            SMT.LATHA KRISHNAN
     THIS    WRIT   PETITION    (CIVIL)     HAVING    COME    UP    FOR
ADMISSION    ON   02.11.2021,    THE     COURT   ON   THE    SAME   DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 W.P.(C).No.8936/2010

                                 2


                  P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
                   --------------------------------
                   W.P.(C).No.8936 of 2010
            ----------------------------------------------
        Dated this the 02nd day of November, 2021


                          JUDGMENT

Petitioner is a registered Society consisting of the

employees belonging to Scheduled Caste and Scheduled

Tribes working in the Cochin Port Trust. The petitioner is

aggrieved by Exts.P23 to P29, which are impugned in this writ

petition. The petitioner approached the 2nd respondent for

getting certain land for constructing an office building.

Originally the land was allotted on lease to the petitioner, but

the petitioner submitted that the same is not suitable for them

and thereafter another land was allotted. But, meanwhile the

guidelines regarding the land management of the Port Trust

were revised by the Government of India and as per Clause

2(iii) of Ext.R2(c), all cases of lease of lands in respect of non-

port related activities for any period, including any renewal of

such leases, shall be referred to the Ministry for prior

approval. Accordingly the Port Trust forwarded the proposal

to the Ministry for prior approval. But as per Ext.P24, the 1 st W.P.(C).No.8936/2010

respondent rejected the request for approval mainly for the

reason that the existing guidelines do not permit the allotment

of land to any trade unions on nomination basis. Aggrieved by

Ext.P24 and other orders, this writ petition is filed.

2. Heard the counsel for the petitioner and the

Standing Counsel for respondents 2 to 8. I also heard the

ASGI for the 1st respondent.

3. The counsel for the petitioner reiterated their

contentions in the writ petition and takes me through the

exhibits produced in the writ petition and submitted that no

such approval is necessary in the present case from the

Central Government. The counsel also submitted that the

petitioner is not a trade union and it is only a Federation of

Central Government Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe

Employees and is a registered society under the Charitable

Societies Act. The counsel submitted that if an opportunity is

given to the petitioner to submit the grievance before the 1 st

respondent, the petitioner will be able to show before the 1 st

respondent that no approval is necessary for giving this land

to the petitioner on lease basis. The Standing Counsel on the

other hand submitted that the Port Trust tried its level best to W.P.(C).No.8936/2010

get approval and Ext.P24 is the order passed by the 1 st

respondent and the same was intimated to the petitioner as

per Ext.P23 letter. The Standing Counsel submitted that the

Port Trust is not in a position to allot the land in violation of

Ext.P24 proceedings of the 1st respondent.

4. When this writ petition came up for consideration

on 25.03.2010, this Court passed a status quo order as regards

the statue of Ambedkar which was constructed in the property

allotted to the petitioner Society. It is the case of the

petitioner that when the construction of building was started,

the approval was rejected and the petitioner was not able to

continue with the construction.

5. I don't want to make any observation about the

merit of the case. Ext.P24 is an order passed on 29.07.2003.

The petitioner submitted before this Court that the approval of

the Central Government is not necessary for giving this land to

the petitioner and Ext.R3(c) is not applicable to the facts of

this case. It is also submitted by the petitioner that if an

opportunity is given to them, they will be able to convince the

1st respondent that the approval is not necessary. It is also the

case of the petitioner that if approval is necessary, the W.P.(C).No.8936/2010

reasoning in Ext.P24 is not correct. As I observed earlier, I

don't want to make any further opinion. In the light of the

facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that

Ext.P24 can be set aside and the 1st respondent can be

directed to reconsider the entire matter after giving an

opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and respondents 2 to

8. All the contentions of the petitioner in this writ petition can

be left open and the petitioner is free to submit their

grievance before the 1st respondent at the time of hearing.

Therefore, this writ petition is disposed in the following

manner:

1. Ext.P24 is set aside.

2. The 1st respondent is directed to reconsider

the matter, after giving an opportunity of

hearing to the petitioner and respondents 2 to

8, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate,

within four months from the date of receipt of

a copy of this judgment.

3. The 1st respondent is free to conduct the

hearing either virtually or physically.

4. All the contentions of the petitioner in this writ W.P.(C).No.8936/2010

petition are left open.

5. Till a decision is taken by the 1 st respondent

and communicated the same to the petitioner

as directed above, status quo as on today as far

as the land in question shall be maintained by

both parties.

Sd/-

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JV JUDGE W.P.(C).No.8936/2010

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 8936/2010

PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 30/03/1992 ISSUED BY THE MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT (PORTS WING) TO THE CHAIRMAN, COCHIN PORT TRUST.

Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 14/01/1993 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER.

Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES INCLUDING THE AGENDA OF THE MEETING NO.11 HELD ON 26/03/1993.

Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE RESOLUTION NO.480 OF THE MEETING OF THE BOARD HELD ON 26/03/1993.

Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 29/04/1993 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER.

Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 17/05/1993.

Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE HANDING OVER/TAKING OVER CERTIFICATE DATED 17/06/1993. Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE DEED OF LICENCE DATED 21/01/1995.

Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 11/03/1997.

Exhibit P10 TRUE COPY OF THE 1995 LAND POLICY. Exhibit P11 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 29/04/2000 ISSUED BY THE COCHIN PORT TRUST.

Exhibit P12 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 27/04/2000 TOGETHER WITH PLAN.

Exhibit P13 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 29/05/2000.

Exhibit P14 TRUE COPY OF THE PRESS RELEASE DATED 08/06/2000.

Exhibit P15 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 28/07/2000.

Exhibit P16 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 11/03/2002.

Exhibit P17 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 30/03/2002 ISSUED BY THE COCHIN PORT TRUST.

W.P.(C).No.8936/2010

Exhibit P18 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 19/04/2000.

Exhibit P19 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 20/07/2002.

Exhibit P20 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 25/07/2002.

Exhibit P21 TRUE COPIES OF THE NOCS ISSUED BY VARIOUS AUTHORITIES TOGETHER WITH BUILDING PERMIT.

Exhibit P22 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 03/08/2002.

Exhibit P23 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 31/05/2006.

Exhibit P24 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 29/07/2003.

Exhibit P25 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 18/10/2003.

Exhibit P26 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 30/08/2006.

Exhibit P27 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 07/12/2006.

Exhibit P28 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 04/03/2008.

Exhibit P29 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 02/06/2008.

Exhibit P30 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 29/05/2008.

Exhibit P31 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 07/06/2008.

Exhibit P32 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPTS DATED 25/09/2008, 27/03/2009 AND 23/09/2009. Exhibit P33 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT FOR THE BILL DATED 15/03/2010.

Exhibit P34 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 16/02/2010.

Exhibit P35 TRUE COPIES OF RESOLUTIONS PASSED IN FAVOUR OF VARIOUS ORGANIZATIONS/TRADE UNIONS.

Exhibit P36 TRUE COPY OF THE LAND POLICY 2004.

RESPONDENT EXHIBITS Exhibit R2(A) TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 29/12/1995 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

W.P.(C).No.8936/2010

Exhibit R2(B) TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 20/12/2005 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER.

Exhibit R2(C) TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 15/02/2000 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

Exhibit R2(D) TRUE COPY OF LAND POLICY DATED 08/03/2004.

Exhibit R2(E) TRUE COPY OF RESOLUTION NO.31 DATED 14/06/1996.

Exhibit R2(F) TRUE COPY OF LETTER ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 23/04/1996.

Exhibit R2(G) TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 12/05/1999 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER.