High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2016-11-14Disposed

M/S RELIANCE JIO INFOCOMM LIMITED (RJIL) vs THE SECRETARY, ALAPPUZHA MUNICIPALITY & STATE OF KERALA

Case / Petition Number:WP(C).No. 36392 of 2016 (Y)

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: K. Vinod Chandran
Judgment Date: 2016-11-14
Court Decision / Holding: The writ petition is disposed of. The interim order is modified to require payment of one-half of Rs.7,81,04,315/- (the additional amount demanded) as security for restoration within one month. The Tribunal will adjudicate the remaining issues on the terms of the underlying agreement. Recovery is kept in abeyance for one month to allow compliance; if the deposit is not made, recovery will revive. All other contentions are left open before the Tribunal. No costs.
Final Disposition: Disposed

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

M/S RELIANCE JIO INFOCOMM LIMITED (RJIL)

Respondents

The Secretary, Alappuzha Municipality, Alappuzha 688 001
State of Kerala represented by its Secretary Department of Information Technology Government Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram 695 001

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri.E.K. Nandakumar (Sr.)
• Sri.M.GopikrishnAN Nambiar
• Sri.P.Gopinath
• Sri.P.Benny Thomas
• Sri.K.John Mathai
• Sri.Joson Manavalalan
• Sri.Kuryan Thomas

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri.Azad Babu, SC
• Sri.SurIN George

Case Synopsis & Summary

This writ petition challenges an interim order of the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions directing the Reliance Jio InfoComm Limited (RJIL) to pay two-thirds of the disputed demand within fifteen days, arising from a road-cutting project to lay underground cables. Alappuzha Municipality sought restoration security for the road loss, initially Rs. 1,55,94,153, and later demanded additional security for extended road length, along with a penalty and a ten-year advance user fee. RJIL deposited sums under Ext.P11 but the Tribunal’s interim directive covered only two-thirds of the total demand (Ext.P21). RJIL contends the Tribunal’s order lacks reasoned basis and relies on Archana Agencies v. Commercial Tax Officer to argue that stays must be supported by reasons; it questions the municipality’s authority to levy penalties or collect user fees in advance and disputes whether restoration has been completed. There is a dispute about whether the security money is for restoration or other purposes, and whether the amounts are to be forfeited for non-restoration. The High Court, while acknowledging these prima facie issues, modifies the order by directing payment of one-half of the additional amount as security for restoration (one-half of Rs.7,81,04,315) and staying recovery for one month to enable compliance, leaving other questions to be adjudicated by the Tribunal. The petition is disposed of with no costs.

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Stay orders during pendency of proceedings must be supported with reasons (Archana Agencies v. Commercial Tax Officer, 2014 (2) KLT 715)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petition contends that the Tribunal’s interim order directing payment of two-thirds of the demanded amount within fifteen days lacks reasoned basis. It relies on Archana Agencies to argue that stays must be supported by reasons and challenges the Tribunal’s authority to order penalties or advance user-fee collection, especially where restoration status is disputed. RJIL asserts that the major portion of the demand relates to user-fee for ten future years and questions the proportionality and legality of such charges, urging the Court to consider a more limited safeguard. It also disputes the assumption that restoration is incomplete, proposing that any unresolved restoration should be addressed by the Tribunal, with deposit sufficient to ensure compliance. The petitioner seeks to modify the interim relief and to remand only if necessary, preserving public convenience while protecting RJIL’s financial interests.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents contend that the road-cutting activity for laying underground cables justifies security and user-fee demands to ensure restoration and compensate for public inconvenience. They argue that the Tribunal’s interim order is a protective measure to secure restoration and safeguard public interests pending adjudication. They highlight the initial security deposit and subsequent enhanced demands, including a ten-year advance user fee, as legitimate under the terms of the agreement and applicable guidelines. The respondents emphasize that the Tribunal must determine the validity and reasonableness of penalties claimed and whether such sums can be collected in advance. They maintain that the matter requires careful adjudication by the Tribunal, and any modification by this Court should be narrow, preserving the authority of the local body to recover sums due for restoration and related costs until a final decision is reached.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Archana Agencies v. Commercial Tax Officer	2014 (2) KLT 715	Positive	Court relied on this decision to emphasize that stay orders must be supported with reasons, a principle invoked by the petitioner to challenge the Tribunal’s lack of stated reasons.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against M/S RELIANCE JIO INFOCOMM LIMITED (RJIL) vs THE SECRETARY, ALAPPUZHA MUNICIPALITY & STATE OF KERALA and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN** **MONDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2016/23RD KARTHIKA, 1938** **WP(C).No. 36392 of 2016 (Y) ----------------------------** **PETITIONER(S): -------------** **M/S.RELIANCE JIO INFOCOMM LIMITED(RJIL) CIRCLE OFFICE, 3RD FLOOR NEAR YATHRI NIVAS, MAMANGALAM PALARIVATTOM, KOCHI 682 025 REPRESENTED BY ITS VINOD G GIYAL STATE HEAD FOR KERALA** **BY ADVS.SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR (SR.) SRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR SRI.P.GOPINATH SRI.P.BENNY THOMAS SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI SRI.JOSON MANAVALAN SRI.KURYAN THOMAS** ## **RESPONDENT(S):** **--------------** **1. THE SECRETARY, ALAPPUZHA MUNICIPALITY ALAPPUZHA 688 001** **2. STATE OF KERALA** - **REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001** **R1 BY ADV. SRI.AZAD BABU, SC, R2 BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.SURIN GEORGE** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14-11-2016,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **bp** **WP(C).No. 36392 of 2016 (Y)** **----------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS** ## **-----------------------** **EXHIBIT P1: TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED 25-5-1999 ISSUED BY THE MINISTRY OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS AND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY EXHIBIT P2: TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED 4-2-2002 ISSUED BY THE MINISTRY OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS AND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY EXHIBIT P3: TRUE COPY OF THE GUIDELINES ISSUED BY THE MINISTRY OF ROAD TRANSPORT AND HIGHWAYS DATED 7-08-2013 EXHIBIT P4: TRUE COPY OF THE GUIDELINES ISSUED BY THE MINISTRY OF ROAD TRANSPORT AND HIGHWAYS DATED 2-4-2014 EXHIBIT P5: TRUE COPY OF THE CLARIFICATION ISSUED BY THE MINISTRY OF ROAD TRANSPORT AND HIGHWAYS DATED 7-7-2014 EXHIBIT P6: TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 12-12-2013 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P7: TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATIOND ATED 11-6-2014 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P8: TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 17-09-2015 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER SO THE 1ST RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P9: TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 8-2-2016 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER EXHIBIT P10: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 27-02-2016 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO 1ST RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P11: TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION OF THE ALAPPUZHA MUNICIPALITY COUNCIL DATED 15-6-2016 EXHIBIT P12: TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 27-06-2016 FROM THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P13: TRUE COPY OF LETTER DT 30/6/2016 FROM THE PETITIONER TO THE R1.** ## **WP(C).No. 36392 of 2016 (Y)** - **EXHIBIT P14: TRUE COPY OF LETTER DT 13/7/2016 FROM THE R1 TO THE PETITIONER.** - **EXHIBIT P15: TRUE COPY OF LETTER DT 28/7/2016 FROM PETITIONER TO THE R1.** - **EXHIBIT P16: TRUE COPY OF PWD CIRCULAR DT 18/3/2013. EXHIBIT P17: TRUE COPY OF LETTER DT 17/8/2016 FROM THE R1 TO THE PETITIONER.** - **EXHIBIT P18: TRUE COPY OF NOTICE DT 27/10/2016 FROM R1 TO THE PETITIONER.** - **EXHIBIT P19: TRUE COPY OF APPEAL NO.1068 OF 2016 BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS ALONG WITH THE PETITION FOR STAY DATED 1/11/2016.** - **EXHIBIT P20: TRUE COPY OF ORDER DT 2/11/2016 OF THE TRIBUNAL FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS.** - **EXHIBIT P21: TRUE COPY OF NOTICE DT 4/11/2016 ISSUED BY THE R1 TO THE PETITIONER.** **RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : NIL.** ## **//TRUE COPY//** **P.A. TO JUDGE** **bp** ## **K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.** -----------------------------------------W.P.(C) No. 36392 of 2016 (Y) -----------------------------------------Dated: 14[th] November, 2016 ## **J U D G M E N T** The petitioner is aggrieved with the interim order passed by the Tribunal directing payment of 2/3[rd] of the amount demanded within fifteen days. The petitioner is also aggrieved with the demand issued at Ext.P21 directing payment of Rs.36,84,90,68/-. 2. Obviously, the demand is raised on account of the road cutting activity carried on by the petitioner to lay under ground cables. A reading of Ext.P11 indicates that the petitioner Company had sought for cutting 15.77 Kms of road for the purpose of laying underground cables. Out of the 15.77 Kms road, 9.756 Kms was gravel road and the balance tarred road. The respondent Municipality had sought for remittance of ## **W.P.(C) No. 36392/2016** **-2-** Rs.1,55,94,153/- as security, for restoration of the road to its original state. The petitioner made the above deposit and the understanding was that the work of laying cables and restoration would be completed by 31.05.2015. 3. The work was underground cabling commenced and, it is alleged, was done over a length of 34.51 Kms of tarred road and hence, the Municipality demanded additional security of Rs.9,36,98,468/-. Further, by Ext.P11 a penalty of Rs.10 lakhs was imposed and there was also a rent/user fee imposed for every year when the cables were used by the petitioner and there was also a decision taken to collect in advance the user fee applicable for ten future years. It was against such demand that the petitioner approached the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institution in which the Tribunal has passed the above **-3-** ## **W.P.(C) No. 36392/2016** interim order directing payment of 2/3[rd] of the amount demanded. The entire demands as per Ext.P11 was computed and 2/3[rd] of the said demand has been computed in Ext.P21, which is challenged herein. 4. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner relies on **Archana Agencies v. Commercial Tax Officer - 2014 (2) KLT 715** wherein, this Court had held that any stay granted during the pendency of the proceeding should be supported with reasons. The Tribunal has not stated any reasons and has merely confined the relief to the 2/3[rd] portion. The controversy involved, though involving high stakes, a remand would only delay the entire exercise especially considering the fact that the destructed road would only lead to inconvenience and hardship to the public in general. The issue of interim order hence can be looked into by this Court itself. **-4-** ## **W.P.(C) No. 36392/2016** 5. Prima facie this Court is not convinced that the Municipality has the power to levy a penalty or collect user fee, that too in advance; unless it is so provided in the agreement. It is for the Tribunal to consider such issues untrammeled by the prima facie observation made herein. There is also dispute raised as to whether the restoration is carried on or not. The learned Counsel for the petitioner asserts that the restoration is over and if at all anything remains; it is undertaken on behalf of the petitioner that the restoration would be completed at the risk and cost of the petitioner. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the local body has serious objections as against the assertion made by the petitioner of the restoration having been completed. It is also argued that the amounts deposited and now demanded, though as ## **W.P.(C) No. 36392/2016** **-5-** security, on failure to restore the road within the time frame, the amounts stand forfeited. 6. Considering the controversy involved and also the fact that the major portion of the amounts demanded is the user fee demanded in advance for 10 years this Court would direct the payment of one half of the additional amount demanded as security for restoration i.e: one-half of Rs.7,81,04,315/-. The modification is made only since the said amount is demanded in lieu of the apprehended default of the petitioner in not restoring the road. The question of the sustainability of the penalty and the user fee levied would be considered by the Tribunal; which adjudication would have to be made on the terms of the agreement entered into between the petitioner and the local authority for laying underground cables. ## **W.P.(C) No. 36392/2016** **-6-** 7. Ext.P20 would stand modified to the extent noticed above and on the petitioner remitting one-half of Rs.7,81,04,315/- within a period of one month, the appeal would be considered by the Tribunal. The above order is passed only since the amounts are deposited in lieu of failure to do the restoration work, properly, to the satisfaction of the Municipality. Such factual disputes would be looked into by the Tribunal untramelled by the observations made; which, as already noticed are only prima facie observations in support of the interim direction issued. This order need not also restrain the petitioner from finishing the restoration work to the satisfaction of the local authority. The recovery would be kept in abeyance for one month and on the failure to make the deposit as directed herein the recovery would revive. ## **W.P.(C) No. 36392/2016** **-7-** The writ petition is disposed of. All contentions of either parties are left open before the Tribunal. No Costs. Sd/K.VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE jjj 14/11/16