AUGUSTHYKUTTY Vs. COCHIN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner submits that his land and house was acquired for the purpose of construction of Cochin International Airport, Nedumbassery. The first respondent, Cochin International Airport Limited ( "CIAL " for short) came up with a scheme for giving benefits as a measure of compensation and re-habilitation to persons whose lands were acquired for the project and the petitioner being a person eligible, applied for pre-paid taxi permit at the airport as he claimed that he had not obtained any benefits. By Ext. P1, the petitioner was directed to produce documents showing proof of his claim and by Ext. P2 he was requested to report at the HR Department of CIAL. However, by Ext. P3, CIAL informed the petitioner that on enquiry, it was found that the petitioner's son was offered with an employment with AIR India and the list of persons engaged by AIR India was also annexed and for the said reason the request of the petitioner was declined.

(2.) The petitioner makes his claim on the basis of Ext. P4 which is a letter issued by AIR India stating that there was no compensatory agreement between them and CIAL as regards the land acquisition evictees and thus, it is the submission of the petitioner that the job obtained by his son has no reference to the acquisition proceedings and therefore, the petitioner's application for pre-paid taxi permit cannot be rejected. In view of the disputes raised AIR India was impleaded as an additional 3rd respondent in the Writ Petition.

(3.) The counter affidavit filed by CIAL states that AIR India had given a list of 24 candidates whose houses were acquired for construction of Cochin International Airport and it contains the name of the petitioner Anil.K. as Serial No. 19 and by Ext. R1(c) dtd. 19/2/2003 CIAL had specifically mentioned that the persons who did not get any facility/benefit may submit application for pre-paid car permits. It is submitted while furnishing the list along with Ext. R1 (c) it was by an inadvertent mistake, the name of the petitioner was included though the petitioner's son had availed the benefit of employment and that it was suppressing that material fact that an application was preferred by the petitioner. 3. AIR India had also filed a counter affidavit taking a preliminary objection on the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that pursuant to the policy decision taken by the Government of India to disinvest its 100% holding in AIR India Limited, AIR India has ceased to become a Government Company with effect from 27/1/2022, and therefore, it is not longer a "State " under Article 12 of the Constitution of India, and therefore, not amenable to the writ jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court. On these grounds they prayed for dismissal of the Writ Petition.