WAHID Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who claims to be a social worker and a Municipal Councillor of the Corporation of Trivandrum, has approached this Court with the Original Petition praying for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash an order issued by the Government of Kerala dated 5.6.2000 allotting an area of 2500 sq.ft. in favour of M/s. Malayalam Communications Ltd. to set up a studio in the first floor of Travancore House Palace in New Delhi on rental basis at the rate of Rs. 75.00 per sq.ft. According to the petitioner, this order was not backed by a Government decision to lease out any portion of the Travancore House Palace in New Delhi to any private individual or a company not owned or controlled by the State and that the grant to respondent No. 2, the Malayalam Communications Ltd., was done without following any procedure and arbitrarily and it was really a distribution of largesse by the Government and that the grant was based on political consideration. It is further contended that the rent fixed was low compared to the rent payable by the other lessees who were Corporations controlled by the Government and by the State Bank of Travancore in the same floor and that the grant was not in public interest. The petitioner has a further case that though what was purported to be leased out was only an area of 2500 sq.ft., what respondent No. 2 was doing was to occupy a larger extent in the first floor unauthorisedly but with the connivance of the authority concerned.

(2.) In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State what is stated is that there was no Government decision not to let out any portion of the Travancore House Palace in New Delhi to any individual or a company not owned or controlled by the State. It is stated that a request was received from respondent No. 2, a public limited company, for allotment of space in Travancore House Palace, New Delhi and the Government deputed an officer to New Delhi to examine the feasibility of the request received from the company. Thereafter it was decided to grant the lease for a period of three years and a lease deed in that behalf marked Ext. R1 had been executed. It is stated that an area of 3370 sq.ft. in the very same floor was being occupied by the State Bank of Travancore. The State Bank of Travancore was paying a monthly rent of Rs. 50.00 per sq.ft. In the year 1999 the rent was enhanced to Rs. 100.00 per sq.ft. what was leased out to the company was the rear portion of the first floor and the rent of Rs. 75.00 per sq.ft. was reasonable. It is not stated in the counter affidavit that there was any Government Order or Cabinet decision authorising the grant of such a lease. As noticed, what is stated is that there was no Government decision restraining allotment of space in Travancore House Palace in New Delhi to private parties on rental basis. It is contended that there was no abuse of power and the Government had taken care of public interest and no concession was granted to respondent No. 2. The specific allegation of the petitioner that respondent No. 2 was the front of a political party was not specifically dealt with in the counter affidavit, except stating that it was a public limited company.

(3.) The company, the second respondent, in its counter affidavit did not disclose how the shares were held in the company or by whom. The motive behind the filing of the Original Petition by the petitioner was questioned. It was denied that the company was managed and administered by persons belonging to Communist Party of India (Marxist). This was to meet the allegation of the petitioner that this was a distribution of largesse by the Marxist led Government to a Marxist Front organisation. The application filed by the Company was duly processed and the lease was granted. The rent fixed was reasonable and commensurate with the rent prevalent in the locality. The company was a public limited company incorporated under the Companies Act. The shares were allotted to persons in terms of the Memorandum of Association and under the provisions of the Company Law. It is also contended that certain persons attempted to file a Writ Petition before the Delhi High Court questioning the decision to lease out the area to the company. But that Original Petition was dismissed and in view of that, nothing remains to be decided in this Original Petition.