[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
R. Rakesh vs The State Of Kerala on 6 December, 2025
WP(C) NO. 9592 OF 2025 :1: 2025:KER:94540
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.
SATURDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2025 15TH AGRAHAYANA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 9592 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
R. RAKESH
AGED 49 YEARS
S/O. RAVINDRAN MURILCHOLI CHOIAN, 'SWASTHIKA',
CHEVARAMBALAM P.O., CHEVAYUR, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT,
PIN - 673017
BY ADVS.
SHRI.N.M.MADHU
SMT.C.S.RAJANI
SHRI.PREM NATH P.
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO THE DEPARTMENT OF
FISHERIES AND HARBOUR, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 695001
2 THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
HARBOUR ENGINEERING DIVISION, PUTHIYANIRATH,
ELATHOOR P.O., KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN - 673303
3 THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER
HARBOUR ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT, PUTHIYANIRATH,
KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN - 673303
4 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR
THE CHAIRMAN, HARBOUR MANAGEMENT SOCIETY, CIVIL
STATION, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN - 673001
5
THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF
THAZHEKKOD, PAVAMANI ROAD. KOZHIKODE DISTRICT,
PIN - 673004
WP(C) NO. 9592 OF 2025 :2: 2025:KER:94540
6 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER
BEYPORE, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN - 673015
7 ADDL.R7. THE CHIEF ENGINEER
HARBOUR ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT, KAMALESWARAM,
MANACAUD P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT - 695
009 [ADDL.R7 ARE IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED
15.09.2025 IN I.A.1/2025 IN WP(C)9592/2025].
BY ADV SMT.K.G.SAROJINI, SR.GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 06.12.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 9592 OF 2025 :3: 2025:KER:94540
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is a contractor, who was entrusted with
the task of collecting toll from the vehicles and boats, entering in
the Beypore Harbour, Kozhikode, for the period of one year from
04.03.2024 to 03.03.2025. Ext.P1 is the tender, based on which,
the work was entrusted to the petitioner. The total amount
quoted by the petitioner was Rs.50,00,051/-. Ext.P2(a) is the
agreement dated 07.03.2024, executed between the petitioner
and the 2nd respondent in this regard.
2. The case of the petitioner is that, after executing the
said agreement, there was severe resistance from the part of
vehicle owners and boat owners, against the collection of toll and
therefore the petitioner could not collect the toll for a
considerable period of time. According to the petitioner, about 8
months, the petitioner could not collect the toll. It is also the
case of the petitioner that, even though several communications
were issued in this regard, to the authorities concerned, including
the respondents and police, there was no effective resolution of
the problems highlighted by the petitioner. This prompted the
petitioner to approach this Court by filing W.P (C) No.26280/2024
seeking police protection.
WP(C) NO. 9592 OF 2025 :4: 2025:KER:94540
3. This Court disposed of the said Writ Petition as per
Ext.P5, recording the submission of the learned Government
Pleader that the police will keep vigil in the area and ensure
payment of toll by persons and vehicles entering Beypore
Harbour. Thereafter, despite the said direction, the effective
police protection could be ensured and the toll collection could be
resumed, only after the initiation of contempt of court
proceedings against the police.
4. In such circumstances, as the petitioner could not
collect the toll, for a substantial period, the petitioner submitted
Ext.P10 seeking extension of time, and also to grant certain
exemptions from making payment of instalments towards the
charges. Thereafter, this Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner
seeking the following reliefs:-
i. To issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate
writ, order or direction quashing Ext.P9.
ii. To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate
writ, order or direction commanding the respondents
two to Jour to consider the request made by the
petitioner in Exts.P7, P7(a), P8 and P10 and to allow
the same by extending the period for collection of the
toll by the petitioner in Beypore Harbour, Kozhikode till
4" November 2025.
5. When the matter came up for consideration, this Court
passed an interim order dated 11.03.2025 directing the 2 nd
respondent to dispose of Exts.P7 and P10 representations
submitted by the petitioner. Thereafter, a hearing was conducted
WP(C) NO. 9592 OF 2025 :5: 2025:KER:94540
by the 2nd respondent and Ext.R2(b) Order was passed rejecting
the contentions of the petitioner. It was also found in Ext.R2(b)
that the 2nd respondent is not competent to take a decision on
the extension.
6. A detailed counter affidavit is submitted by the 2 nd
respondent opposing the reliefs sought in this writ petition and
the contentions raised. The main ground raised against the
petitioner is by placing reliance upon clause (9) of the
agreement.
7. Heard Sri.N.M.Madhu, the learned counsel for the
petitioner and Smt.K.G.Sarojini, the learned Senior Government
Pleader for respondents.
8. When the learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that the petitioner was prevented from collecting the toll for a
considerable period during his tenure, the learned Government
Pleader submits that, despite the fact that the contractual
obligation, as evidenced by Ext.P1 included cleaning and
maintenance of the harbour, the petitioner miserably failed in
fulfilling the said obligation. It was also pointed out by the
learned Government Pleader that, even though several
communications were issued to the petitioner in this regard,
there was no positive response.
WP(C) NO. 9592 OF 2025 :6: 2025:KER:94540
9. I have carefully gone through the records. As far as
the difficulty highlighted by the petitioner and the non-collection
of toll for a certain period due to the obstruction from the vehicle
owners and boat owners are concerned, practically, there is no
serious dispute. It is a fact that the petitioner was forced to
approach this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.26280/2024 seeking
police protection and the said Writ Petition was disposed of
recording the undertaking of the respondents that necessary
arrangements would be made to ensure the payment of toll. It is
also an undisputed fact that the aforesaid judgment could be
implemented only after filing the contempt of court case.
Similarly in Ext.R2(b) Order also, the fact that the toll collection
was disrupted for a certain period is practically admitted.
Therefore, the issues raised in this writ petition are to be
considered, taking note of the aforesaid aspects.
10. When coming to the applicability of clause (9), I am
of the view that the same may not be applicable in the factual
circumstances existed in this case. Clause (9) reads as follows:-
"9. ലേലം/ദർഘാസ് എന്നിവയിൽ പങ്കെടുക്കുന്നയാൾ തുറമുഖത്തെ /
കേന്ദ്രത്തിൽ നിലവിലുള്ള സൗകര്യങ്ങൾ, ഹാർബറിൽ നിന്ന് ടോൾ
ഇനത്തിൽ ലഭിക്കാവുന്ന വരുമാനം എന്നിവ മനസ്സിലാക്കിയതിന്
ശേഷം ദർഘാസ് / ലേലത്തിൽ പങ്കെടുക്കേണ്ടതാണ്. ഹാർബറിൽ
നിന്ന് വരുമാനം കുറഞ്ഞുവെന്ന പേരിൽ പിന്നീട് കരാർ കാലാവധി
നീട്ടി നല്കുന്നതുൾപ്പെടെ യാതൊരുവിധ ഇളവും അനുവദിക്കുന്നതല്ല. "
WP(C) NO. 9592 OF 2025 :7: 2025:KER:94540
11. Going by the said clause, it is evident that the
petitioner was under an obligation to make a realistic assessment
of the revenue that could be generated by way of toll from the
Harbour, and it further provides that, the fact that the expected
revenue could not be generated, cannot be a reason for seeking
extension of the period or exemption from the charges. However,
the issue that raised by the petitioner is slightly different and it
does not relate to the realistic assessment of the revenue that
could be generated from the harbour by way of toll. On the other
hand, the difficulty highlighted is something that could not have
been expected under normal circumstances, as the disruption
was due to third-party interference, namely, the persons from the
toll is to be collected. Therefore, this is not a matter that would
come strictly under clause (9) of Ext.P1. Therefore, the said
contention of the respondent by itself cannot be a ground to
deny the extension to the petitioner. This would mean that, in
case respondents are arriving at a finding from examination of
the material that the toll collection was disrupted, the question of
extension is to be considered, de hors clause 9 of the agreement.
12. The next aspect to be considered is the contention
raised by the learned Government Pleader pointing out that,
despite the fact that clause 36 of Ext.P1 imposes an obligation
WP(C) NO. 9592 OF 2025 :8: 2025:KER:94540
upon the petitioner to clean and maintain the harbour which
includes maintenance of electrical equipment and the
implements of water supply, the changing of lights, etc, the
petitioner miserably failed in fulfilling the said obligations. The
learned Government Pleader also brought to the attention of this
Court, various complaints received by the respondents in this
regard, which highlighted the lapses on the part of the petitioner.
Besides, it is also pointed out that the petitioner also failed to pay
the rent on time.
13. However, even though, those are relevant aspects to
be considered by the authorities concerned, it is a fact that as of
now, a decision on these issues has not been taken by any
competent authority. As far as the requests made by the
petitioner for extension is concerned, the same was rejected as
per Ext.R2(b) by the 2nd respondent solely on the reason that he
is not the person competent to decide the issue. Therefore, the
officer competent in this regard has to consider all these aspects
and to take a final decision in the same. Now the petitioner had
already submitted Ext.P12 before the additional 7 th respondent,
who is the competent authority and therefore it is only proper
that a decision be taken on these issues after hearing him.
WP(C) NO. 9592 OF 2025 :9: 2025:KER:94540
In such circumstances, this Writ Petition is disposed of
directing the additional 7th respondent to take up Ext.P12 and to
take decision thereon after giving the petitioner an opportunity
for being heard. While taking a decision, it shall be open to the
additional 7th respondent to take into account the complaints as
highlighted by the learned Government pleader with regard to
the non-fulfillment of the obligations under clause 36 of Ext.P1
tender document from the part of the petitioner as well. It is also
clarified that the question of arrears of rent can also be decided
by the authorities concerned, and upon determining the said
amount, the petitioner shall make the said payments, irrespective
of the question as to whether the extension is provided or not.
The decision shall be taken within a period of one month from the
date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
Sd/-
ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.
JUDGE
nk
WP(C) NO. 9592 OF 2025 :10: 2025:KER:94540
APPENDIX OF WP(C) NO. 9592 OF 2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE TENDER NO.
HED/EE/05/2023-24 E-T/S DATED 05.10.2023
ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.
H.C/118571/2023/EE DATED 04.03.2024
PASSED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT
Exhibit P2 (a) TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DATED
07.03.2024 EXECUTED BETWEEN THE
PETITIONER AND THE SECOND RESPONDENT
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED
06.07.2024 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER
TO THE SECOND RESPONDENT
Exhibit P3 (a) TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST DATED
19.07.2024 SUBMITTED BY THE SECOND
RESPONDENT TO THE FIFTH RESPONDENT
Exhibit P3 (b) TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST DATED
19.07.2024 SUBMITTED BY THE SECOND
RESPONDENT TO THE SIXTH RESPONDENT
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 06.07.2024
SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE THIRD
RESPONDENT
Exhibit P4 (a) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 06.07.2024
SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE
FOURTH RESPONDENT
Exhibit P4 (b) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 06.07.2024
SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE FIFTH
RESPONDENT
Exhibit P4 (c) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 06.07.2024
SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE SIXTH
RESPONDENT
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
02.08.2024 IN W.P.(C) NO. 26280/2024 OF
THIS HON'BLE COURT
Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 31.08.2024
SENT TO THE FIFTH RESPONDENT
Exhibit P6 (a) TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 31.08.2024
SENT TO THE SIXTH RESPONDENT
Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST DATED
13.01.2025 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER
TO THE SECOND RESPONDENT
WP(C) NO. 9592 OF 2025 :11: 2025:KER:94540
Exhibit P7 (a) TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST DATED
13.01.2025 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER
TO THE THIRD RESPONDENT
Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED
22.01.2025 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER
TO THE FOURTH RESPONDENT
Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF THE TENDER NOTIFICATION
NO.EE/CLT/35/2024-25 DATED 20.02.2025
Exhibit P10 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER 06.03.2025
SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE
SECOND RESPONDENT
Exhibit P11 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED
20.06.2025 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER
TO THE CHIEF ENGINEER,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
Exhibit P12 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED
08.08.2025 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER
TO THE CHIEF ENGINEER,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS
Exhibit R2(b) True copy of the report dated 27.03.2025
issued by the Executive Engineer,
Harbour Engineering Division, Kozhikode.
Exhibit R2(a) A true copy of the letter No.
A1/212245/2025/EE dated 20/03/2025
issued by the Executive Engineer to the
petitioner.
