Vijayakumar v. Travancore Devaswom Board

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN MONDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2015/4TH KARTHIKA, 1937 WP(C).No. 32291 of 2015 (J) ---------------------------- PETITIONER(S):

-------------------------- S.VIJAYA KUMAR, AGED 56 YEARS, NAKKALATHU HOUSE, KALADY, KARAMANA P.O.

THIRUVANANTHAHPRUAM.

BY ADVS.SRI.R.SUNIL KUMAR SMT.A.SALINI LAL RESPONDENT(S):

---------------------------- 1.

TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, NANTHANCODE THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

2.

TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD REPRESENTED BY ITS EXECUTIVE OFFICER SABARIMALA DEVASOM, NANTHANCODE THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

BY SRI.V.KRISHNA MENON, SC, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26-10-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WP(C).No. 32291 of 2015 (J) ---------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ------------------------------------- EXT.P1.COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 10/11/2011 EXT.P2.COPY OF THE RECEIPT EXT.P3.COPY OF THE ORDER IN WPC NO.31359/2011 EXT.4.COPY OF THE ORDER IN IA NO.2833/2011 IN SSCR NO.4/2011. EXT.P5.COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE PROCEEDINGS AS ROC NO.6223/11/SAB.

EXT.P6.COPY OF THE ORDER AS ROC NO.9271/11/SAB DATED 17/4/2012.

EXT.P7.COPY OF THE ADVERTISEMENT PUBLISHED IN MATHRUBHUMI DAILY.

EXT.P8.COPY OF THE COMPLAINT EXT.P9.COPY OF THE LAYERS NOTICE EXT.P10.COPY OF THE NOTICE.

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS --------------------------------------- NIL //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE.

jg-9/11

THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & ANU SIVARAMAN, JJ.

.................................................................... WP(C) No.32291 of 2015 .................................................................... Dated this the 26th day of October, 2015.

J U D G M E N T

Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J.

1.We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the Travancore Devaswom Board. 2.In the year 2011, certain issues arose as to whether toll could be collected from vehicles moving to the parking lots of Hill Top, Triveni, Chakkupalam I and Chakkupalam II in connection with Sabarimala festival. The process of collecting toll was deprecated and the collection was stopped through orders of this Court. Thereafter, through Ext.P4 order dated 13.12.2011, the Division Bench had directed the TDB to consider the issue to make appropriate refund. The Board authorities were required to carry out discussions with the petitioner. Thereafter, on 17.12.2011, the Board drew up its proceedings, which were followed by the remarks of the Devaswom Chief Engineer (General) on

WPC32291/15 -230.01.2012. That led to Ext.P5 Board proceedings dated 10.02.2012 holding that the Board need to appropriate only `19,78,100/- out of the amount of `95,50,000/- deposited by the petitioner. The petitioner received that amount following the proceedings of the Devaswom Commissioner dated 17.04.2012 authorising release of such amounts. Long thereafter, Ext.P9 advocate notice was issued on behalf of the petitioner claiming that he is entitled to damages. That was replied by the Board through its advocate through Ext.P10 stating that the amount released by the Board was collected and accepted by the petitioner as full and final settlement of the dispute and any further claim is also barred by limitation. Faced with that situation, this writ petition is filed on 21.10.2015 seeking to quash Ext.P5 proceedings of the TDB dated 10.

02.2012 and for consequential reliefs. The claim made is not one which could be adjudicated in writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India because it is preliminary a claim for damages.

WPC32291/15 -3as part of any contract, the situation in hand is not one of a statutory contract or such other contracts, where the High Court would exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. We also see that the petitioner had received the amount following TDB's proceedings of 2012 and it was too late for him, after 31⁄2 years, to have raked up that issue by addressing an advocate notice to the Board demanding damages. To crown all these is the fact that, at this distance of time, the dispute cannot be adjudicated and deserves to be rejected at the threshold, by this Court on the ground of delay and laches as well. In the result, this writ petition is dismissed. (THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE) (ANU SIVARAMAN, JUDGE) jg-26/10