JAYACHANDRAN K Vs. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is a contractor, who entered into an agreement with the respondent-Corporation, for collecting user's fee in respect of Muzhuppilangad Railway Over Bridge in Kannur District. The period of agreement was from 01.08.2010 to 31.07.2011. The contract was granted for an amount of Rs.1,09,99,999/-. The monthly instalment to be paid by the petitioner was Rs.4,58,333/-. It is the contention of the petitioner that during October, 2010, the traffic through the toll gate in question was regulated and diverted by the police, which resulted in loss of revenue to the petitioner. In February, 2011, the petitioner alleges, the traffic of heavy vehicles were entirely banned in Moidu Bridge, which further reduced the revenue collection of the petitioner. On 18.04.2011, one of the beams of Moidu Bridge collapsed and the traffic was fully blocked, contends the petitioner. During this period, the petitioner was representing before the respondent to take such steps including deregulation of traffic and permitting heavy vehicular traffic so as to recoup his revenue. Finally, accepting Ext.P7 request of the petitioner, the contract was terminated by the respondent vide Ext.P8 with effect from 09.05.2011, directing the petitioner to remit all the pending instalments with interest due as on 09.05.2011 and settle the accounts before 10.05.2011.

(2.) Aggrieved by Ext.P8, the petitioner filed W.P.(C) No.13326/2011. This Court, after considering the arguments of the petitioner and the respondent, directed the respondent to consider Ext.P7 representation therein, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, within a period of three months. The respondent accordingly heard the petitioner. After considering the arguments made during the hearing, the General Manager (RBDCK) observed that the restrictions on heavy vehicle traffic were there from 06.10.2008 onwards, much before the period of agreement. The ban for other vehicles, except passenger ones, started only from 20.04.2011. Taking into account all these facts, the General Manager took the following decision:-

(3.) It was contended by the counsel for the petitioner that the loss of revenue suffered by the petitioner on account of the traffic regulation of police, stoppage of heavy vehicles and collapse of Moidu Bridge, was not duly taken into account by the respondent. The petitioner contends that Ext.P10 reply given by the Public Information Officer of the respondent Corporation would show that the revenue generated in the toll booth immediately after the termination of the contract, after discounting necessary expenditure, was insufficient to meet even the monthly stipulated instalment. Therefore, the nominal reduction given by the respondent Corporation would be insufficient and will put the petitioner to great financial loss.