GEORGE K.G v. THE COCHIN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LTD

BY ADVS. SRI.P.BENNY THOMAS (FOR R1 & R3) SRI.D.PREM KAMATH SRI.R.SANJITH (FOR R3) SMT.C.S.SINDHU KRISHNAH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON

04.01.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) No.39427/2015 -:2:- J U D G M E N T This writ petition has been filed challenging Ext.P4 order issued by the Cochin International Airport Limited cancelling the taxi pass/permit issued to the petitioner by the airport on the basis of a representation that he was entitled to such pass/permit on account of the fact that he was an ‘affected person’ on account of acquisition of land for the purposes of setting up the airport. It is not in dispute that taxi pass/permit was being issued only to persons, who were affected by the land acquisition. A reading of Ext.P4 order would indicate that the petitioner had obtained the pass/permit stating that he is the nephew of late Variath, whose land was acquired for the construction of the airport under LAC No.87/1998. The land owner died on 23-10-2002. The 3rd respondent, who is the son of late Variath has disputed the claim of the petitioner that he was entitled to a pass/permit on account of the land acquired from late Variath. A reading of Ext.P4 W.P.(C) No.39427/2015 -:3:- order further indicates that the petitioner had obtained the pass/permit by misrepresenting himself as a close relative of late Variath.

2. Learned counsel, who had initially filed the writ petition on behalf of the petitioner submits that he has relinquished vakalath for the petitioner. There is no representation for the petitioner.

3. The facts of the case being as noticed above, I find no illegality whatsoever in Ext.P4 order. The learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent has also placed for my consideration a copy of the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.1806 of 2014 in W.P.(C)No.25718 of 2014, where this Court held as follows: “6. Respondents 4 to 6 who are the land losers and whose names are shown as the relatives of the applicants in the applications filed by the appellants have rightly come forward and lodged a complaint before the authorities, consequent upon which, the enquiry came to be held and it was found that the appellants had misrepresented for getting authorisation from the Airport authority. Therefore, the authority is justified in withdrawing the authorisation W.P.(C) No.39427/2015 -:4:- granted in favour of the appellants and the learned Single Judge is justified in upholding the same.

7. Merely because the appellants are the members of the Cochin International Airport Taxi Operators Co-operative Society, the same would not clothe them with the right to ply the vehicles to Cochin Airport, since they are not covered under the Scheme formulated by the CIAL. This is not a case wherein there is dispute between two members of the Society. On the other hand, the CIAL is a State, as the public duties discharged by the CIAL would bring it within the ambit of the term “other authority” under Article 12 of the Constitution of India. As mentioned supra, CIAL discharges public duties. The State Government has acquired land in order to establish the International Airport at Kochi. Since thousands of people have lost their land, the beneficiary under acquisition with the avowed object of rehabilitating the land losers, floated the Scheme as a social security measure, in as much as the Airport Authority wants to rehabilitate the land losers/their relatives by providing them employment in the form of issuing authorisation to ply their vehicles as taxi to and from the Kochi International Airport. Hence it is not open for the appellants to raise hpyer- technical points with a view to continue plying of their vehicles, based on the authorisation obtained by them by misrepresentation. The appellants cannot be permitted to enjoy the usufructs of the authorisations which were obtained by them, misrepresenting W.P.(C) No.39427/2015 -:5:- themselves as relatives of land losers, though they are not. The wrong doer cannot be allowed to take advantage of his own fault. In view of the same, it is open for the CIAL to take appropriate decision in the matter and it has done so”. It was pointed out that, the 3rd respondent had filed a complaint stating that an ineligible person (the writ petitioner) had fraudulently obtained pass/permit for operating taxis on the premise that he was a close relative of late Variath. The 3rd respondent has clearly stated that the petitioner is not even related to late Variath. In the light of the above, I find no illegality whatsoever in Ext.P4 order. The writ petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- GOPINATH P. JUDGE W.P.(C) No.39427/2015 -:6:- APPENDIX OF WP(C) 39427/2015 PETITIONER’S EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 EXHIBIT P2 EXHIBIT P3 EXHIBIT P4 EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE IDENTITY CARD ISSUED BY THE COCHIN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT TAXI OPERATORS CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED TO THE PETITIONER DATED 15/12/1999. TRUE COPY OF THE VEHICLE PASS ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER DATED NIL. TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P(C) 29608/2014 DATED 10/11/2014. TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER CIAL/HR/PPP/LGAL/2015 (87/98) ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 19/01/2015. TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER CIAL/PPP/LEGAL/2015 (87/98) /PPP-228 ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT DATED 19/01/2015. EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN W.P(C) 5999/2015 DATED 25/02/2015. RESPONDENTS’ EXHIBITS EXHIBIT R1(a) TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 22-12-1998 PUBLISHED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT EXHIBIT R1(b) TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 24-07-1999 PUBLISHED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT EXHIBIT R1(c) TRUE COPY OF THE CONSENT LETTER DATED NIL OF LATE VARIATH S/O.CHACKO, THE LAND EVICTEE, SUBMITTED BEFORE THE RESPONDENT EXHIBIT R1(d) TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED NIL W.P.(C) No.39427/2015 EXHIBIT R1(e) -:7:- TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 09-03-2006 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT INVITING APPLICATIONS FROM THE HOUSE EVICTEES EXHIBIT R1(f) TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 23-03-2006 SUBMITTED BY THE EVICTEES BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT EXHIBIT R1(g) TRUE COPY OF THE LIST PUBLISHED ON 05-05-2006 BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT OF PERSONS ELIGIBLE FOR OPERATING PRE-PAID TAXIES EXHIBIT R1(h) TRUE COPY OF THE PETITIONER’S SUBMISSION IN THE ENQUIRY POSTED ON 25-11-2014. EXHIBIT R3(a) TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION EXHIBIT R3(b) TRUE COPY OF THE VEHICLE PASS EXHIBIT R3(c) TRUE COPY OF THE RETAIL INVOICE EXHIBIT R3(d) TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE OF HEARING