INFOCOM SOFTWARE PVT. LTD Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ appeal is filed by the petitioners in W. P. (C) No. 11935 of 2020 challenging the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 20.08.2020, whereby the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition holding as follows:-

(2.) The contention put forth by the appellant companies is that while the appellants were running their companies, it had to stop functioning abruptly w.e.f. 23.03.2020 on account of the declaration of the lock-down due to Covid-19 pandemic. The case put forth by the appellants is that considering the unprecedented crisis, the 1st respondent had issued Ext. P3 Government Order dated 27.04.2020 by which the rent for the months of April to June 2020 was directed to be waived for IT companies operating from Government IT Parks, which are having office space less than 10,000 sq.ft. According to the appellants, without knowing about Ext. P3 Government Order, the appellants along with other IT companies operating at Smart City, Kochi had preferred Ext. P4 representation seeking waiver of rent before the 2nd respondent, Smart City (Kochi) Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., which was turned down by the 2nd respondent, which according to the appellants, by assigning flimsy reasons. Anyhow, on knowing about Ext. P3 Government Order, Ext. P5 joint application dated 29.05.2020 was submitted before the Principal Secretary, Department of Electronics and Information, Thiruvananthapuram requesting to extend the benefit of Ext. P3 Government Order specified above. Thereafter, some of the signatories in Ext. P5 had preferred W. P. (C) No. 10536 of 2020 and obtained a direction to the State Government to consider and pass orders on their representation. Seeking similar relief, appellants had submitted the writ petition in question.

(3.) While the writ petition was pending, the 2nd respondent issued notice to the appellants and threatened that they would be evicted immediately without recourse to legal proceedings. At that point of time, the appellants had preferred separate suits seeking injunction against unlawful eviction. Anyhow, the 2nd respondent produced the copies of the plaints and interlocutory applications before the learned Single Judge and sought for dismissal of the writ petition on the ground that civil suits were filed and that in the civil suits, pendency of Writ Petition in question was not mentioned and therefore, it is a material suppression. It is the case of the appellants that the prayers in the writ petition and the civil suits are distinct and separate and the cause of action for initiating both litigations are totally different. It is also pointed out that the civil court may not be in a position to grant the reliefs sought for in the writ petition. However, the learned Single Judge considered the rival submissions made by the appellants as well as the 2 nd respondent that suits are filed without disclosing that the writ petition had already been preferred by the petitioners before this Court. Even though the learned counsel for the appellant submitted before the writ court that the reliefs sought for in the writ petition and the suits are different in nature, the learned Single Judge found that the prayers and the pleadings in the writ petition as well as the suits filed by the appellants before the Munsiff Court are similar in nature and declined discretionary jurisdiction conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.