The Manager, St. Thomas College, Pala v The State of Kerala and Others

# **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN** **THURSDAY, THE 11[TH] DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021 / 20TH KARTHIKA, 1943** ## **WP(C) NO. 19818 OF 2020** ## **PETITIONER:** THE MANAGER, ST.THOMAS COLLEGE PALA P O, KOTTAYAM - 686575. BY ADVS. K.I.MAYANKUTTY MATHER R.JAIKRISHNA ## **RESPONDENTS:** 1 THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN – 695001. 2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686001. 3 THE PALA MUNICIPALITY REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PALA P O, KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686575. BY ADV SRI.RANJITH THAMPAN, ADDL.ADVOCATE GENERAL SHRI.SUJITH MATHEW JOSE, SC ## **OTHER PRESENT:** SRI. JAFFAR KHAN SR.G.P THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11.11.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ## **WP(C) NO. 19818 OF 2020 2** ## **JUDGMENT** The manager of St.Thomas College, Pala, Kottayam, has filed this writ petition impugning Ext.P9 order of the Government, through which an earlier order, namely Ext.P4, issued by them has been cancelled, merely saying that the latter was issued without following procedural requirements. 2. The petitioner explains that, through Ext.P4, an extent of 17.50 cents of land was assigned for the purposes of the College, but that since no action was taken thereon, he approached this Court and obtained Ext.P7 judgment; whereby the District Collector was directed to conclude the proceedings for assignment, without insisting on the petitioner obtaining a No Objection Certificate from the Director of Local Self Government Institutions, within the time frame fixed therein. The petitioner points that this judgment was sought to be reviewed by the District Collector but that, in Ext.P8 order, this Court rejected it, however, with liberty being reserved to the Government to reconsider Ext.P4 order, if it was found so ## **WP(C) NO. 19818 OF 2020 3** warranted. 3. The petitioner says that misconstruing the afore liberty reserved to the Government in Ext.P8 order of the Court, they have now issued Ext.P9 containing a cursory order that Ext.P4 assignment stand cancelled, but without following due procedure. The petitioner contents that Ext.P9 is egregiously improper and prays that same be set aside. 4. I have heard Sri.Mayankutty Mather – learned counsel for the petitioner; Sri.Sujith Mathew Jose – learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 3[rd] respondent; and Sri.Jaffar Khan – learned Senior Government Pleader, appearing for respondents 1 and 2. 5. Sri.Jaffar Khan – learned Senior Government Pleader, submitted that Ext.P9 has been issued because going by Ext.R2(a) Government Order, the property in question, concededly originally belonging to the 3[rd] respondent – Municipality ought to have been first divested from them through a proper notification and only thereafter could it ## **WP(C) NO. 19818 OF 2020 4** have been assigned to the petitioner. He submitted that, therefore, it is only to comply with these procedural requirements that Ext.P9 has been issued and thus prayed that this writ petition be dismissed. 6. Sri.Sujith Mathew Jose – learned Standing Counsel appearing for Pala Municipality, however, submitted that his client has no objection to the assignment made through Ext.P4, since it has been done for the purposes of a College. 7. That being so recorded, there is nothing on record to show that the land in question is part of a 'road puramboke' or that it is required for any further development of the public road. That apart, when the petitioner approached this Court and obtained Ext.P7 judgment seeking conclusion of proceedings pursuant to Ext.P4, without the requirement of production of a No Objection Certificate from the Director of Local Self Government Institutions, it was allowed, but this judgment was then sought to be reviewed by the District Collector by filing R.P.No.1144 of 2019 ## **WP(C) NO. 19818 OF 2020 5** which, however, ended in Ext.P8 rejecting it, though granting liberty to the Government to reconsider Ext.P4 if it becomes so warranted. 8. The liberty which was thus reserved to the Government by this Court in Ext.P8 was not to act as per their whims and fancies, but to act judicially and in terms of the statutory frame work. Pertinently, making use of this liberty, the Government have now issued Ext.P9 cancelling Ext.P4, merely saying that the latter had been issued without following due procedure. However, there is not even a whisper in Ext.P9 as to which was the procedure that was not been followed and how Ext.P4 can be construed to be without statutory force. 9. Going by the well recognized principles unequivocally declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in _**Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner**_ **[1978 (1) SCC 405],** an order will have to be supported by its contents and not by subsequent pleadings and documents. In such ## **WP(C) NO. 19818 OF 2020 6** perspective, when one looks at Ext.P9, no one can understand why it has been issued and what were the procedural requirements that were, allegedly, not followed when it had been issued. In fact, to a pointed question from this Court, Shri.Jaffar Khan - learned Senior Government Pleader, was constrained to concede this. 10. Nevertheless, Shri.Jaffar Khan, learned Senior Government Pleader, persisted in trying to impress upon me that, going by Ext.R2(a) and R2(c) order and circular respectively, an assignment could have been made only for residential purposes and that no part of a road could have been so involved. However, it is evident from the facts presented in this case, which remain uncontested, that the assignment made in favour of the petitioner through Ext.P4 was for the purpose of the College and not for a private cause and that it was intended to benefit the community of students at large. Further, as I have already said above, there is nothing on record to show that the same ## **WP(C) NO. 19818 OF 2020 7** was part of any extent which would be necessary for the future development of a road. 11. At this time Shri.Jaffar Khan intervened to say that as per Ext.R2(a), the College could have been only granted a lease of the property in question and not an assignment. I must say that this argument cannot appeal to me at all since Ext.P9 contains no reason and it merely says that Ext.P4 had been issued without following “procedural requirements” and not that the assignment was bad. 12. I cannot, therefore, fathom any reason to favour Ext.P9, particularly because it is a cursory order and issued without proper application of mind, which is manifest, because it states no cogent reason why the Authority thought that Ext.P4 had been issued without following due procedure. 13. That being so said, the fact remains that even if the contentions of Shri.Jaffar Khan, learned Senior Government Pleader, that Ext.P4 could have been issued only after the Government ## **WP(C) NO. 19818 OF 2020 8** issued a notification divesting the property from Pala Municipality is given some worth, it would be of no consequence in this case because, as already recorded above, the said Municipality has no objection to the assignment and they unambiguously say that they do not require it for any purpose even in future. In the afore circumstances and for the reasons above, I allow this writ petition and set aside Ext.P9. It is so ordered. Sd/- ## **DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN** **JUDGE** ## **MC** ## **WP(C) NO. 19818 OF 2020 9** ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 19818/2020** PETITIONER EXHIBITS |EXHIBIT P1|TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY UNDER THE RIGHT| |---|---| ||TO INFORMATION ACT RECEIVED FROM THE 2ND| ||RESPONDENT.| |EXHIBIT P2|TRUE COPY OF TAX RECEIPT DATED| ||18.05.2018.| |EXHIBIT P2(a)|TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED| ||18.05.2018.| |EXHIBIT P3|TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED| ||16.02.2015.| |EXHIBIT P4|TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 15.09.2015| ||ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT.| |EXHIBIT P5|TRUE COPY OF THE RESOLUTION DATED| ||03.10.2015 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.| |EXHIBIT P6|TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 24.03.2018| ||ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.| |EXHIBIT P7|TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED| ||18.03.2019 IN WPC NO.33335/2018| |EXHIBIT P8|TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 18.03.2019| ||IN RP 1144/2019.| |EXHIBIT P9|TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 14.08.2020| ||ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT.| |Exhibit P10|TRUE COPY OF THE PROPERTY TAX RECEIPT| ||FOR THE PERIOD 2020-2021| |Exhibit P11|PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING THE PRESENT| ||CONDITION OF THE COLLEGE CAMPUS| |Exhibit P11A|PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING THE PRESENT| ||CONDITION OF THE COLLEGE CAMPUS| |Exhibit P11 B|PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING THE PRESENT| ## **WP(C) NO. 19818 OF 2020 10** CONDITION OF THE COLLEGE CAMPUS Exhibit P12 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT Exhibit P12 A TRUE COPY OF THE RESOLUTION OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT Exhibit P13 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE TAHSILDAR, MEENACHIL TALUK OBTAINED UNDER THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT. RESPONDENT ANNEXURE Annexure R2(a) A TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER G.O. (MS) NO.280/2011/RD DATED 27.07.2011. Annexure R2(b) A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT TO THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR DATED 22.10.2019. Annexure R2(c) A TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR DATED 30.09.2009. Annexure R2(d) A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF BASIC TAX REGISTER. Annexure R1(a) THE TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER G.O.(MS) NO.280/2011/RD DATED 27.07.2011. Annexure R1(b) THE TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER G.O.(MS) NO.123/2018/REV. DATED 26.03.2018.