ROHINI FACILITY MANAGEMENT SERVICES Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two writ petitions are filed challenging the steps taken by the 6th respondent Corporation in W.P(C)No.39941 of 2018 (3rd respondent in W.P(C)No.7129 of 2018) with respect to the dispute over the user fee collection at the overbridges at S.N junction, Tripunithura-Irumpanam in the Seaport-Airport road and Ponnurunni overbridge respectively.

(2.) The petitioner in W.P(C)No.39941 of 2018 states that he was the successful bidder for the collection of user fee on contract basis on the overbridges noticed above, awarded by the 6th respondent - a Government of Kerala undertaking. The total amount payable by the petitioner was to the extent of Rs.3,67,20,000.00, in 24 installments commencing from 1/6/2014 and ending by 16/5/2015. The contract was for a period of one year from 1/6/2014 to 1/6/2015. A bank guarantee for Rs.93,63,600.00 is stated to have been furnished towards the security deposit. The petitioner contends that they were not in a position to collect the user fee on account of agitation by the regional residents associations and the local politicians, according to whom, more than sufficient collection compared to the cost of construction has already been made. On account of the afore, the petitioner states that he could not effect the installments as stipulated. The petitioner states that though he filed a writ petition seeking police protection, during the pendency of the same, the 6th respondent Corporation, as per Ext.P1 dtd. 16/8/2014, terminated the contract. The petitioner states that they submitted a detailed representation to the 6th respondent pointing out the difficulties faced by them. However, the respondent Corporation invoked the bank guarantee submitted by the petitioner. The petitioner also approached the Government voicing his grievance and the same was rejected by the Government. The said rejection was the subject matter for challenge in W.P(C)No.3022 of 2015 filed by the petitioner, which stood disposed of by judgment dtd. 26/10/2016, noticing that the impugned order was issued by the Managing Director of the respondent Corporation at that point of time, who was also holding the charge of the Secretary to the Government. This Court noticing that the encashment of the bank guarantee was made without a proper adjudication and consequential quantification of liability, permitted the petitioner to make a motion to that effect to the Government, further directing the Government to take a decision on the matter after obtaining legal advice from the Law Department, if found necessary.

(3.) The Government thereafter issued Ext.P9 dtd. 28/8/2017 and found that the amount realized by invoking the bank guarantee was required to be refunded to the petitioner on "humanitarian reasons". It may straight away be noticed that the order recorded that the petitioner was not able to collect the user fee on account of the public outcry.