The petitioners are the legal heirs of one deceased Palakkadan Pallippadan, whose land and residential building had been acquired by the 2nd respondent for the construction of the International Air Port at Nedumbassery. As per the Scheme of the 2nd respondent, the land owner is entitled to get some extra benefits other than the nominal compensation paid to them. As per the extra benefit scheme, the land owner or his successor in interest is entitled to get either a taxi permit or employment in the Air Port. But, so far, neither the land owner nor his successor in interest had received the said benefit. It is learnt that the Director board Meeting held on 28.06.2012 decided to grant some package and extra benefits to land holders who had not received any package or extra benefits other than the nominal compensation.
2. The petitioner approached the second respondent claiming the said benefit and submitted Ext.P2 representation. When the petitioners made enquiries in CIAL about their eligibility to receive extra benefits they were told that they were not entitled to any extra benefits as they have already been served with taxi permit in the Air Port premises on behalf of the land owner late Palakkadan Pallippadan.
3. After having an enquiry the petitioners came to know that the taxi permit on behalf of the late Palakkadan Pallippadan was obtained by the 7th respondent, a Brahmin by birth, after having produced bogus application and consent letter claiming that he is the son of one of the daughters of late Palakkadan Pallippadan. Thereafter, the 1st petitioner submitted representations before the 2nd respondent for cancellation of the said taxi permit, which was fraudulently obtained by the 7th respondent and also requested him to re-allocate the same to one of the nominees of the petitioners. Though an enquiry had been conducted under Ext.P3 and Ext.P4 and both parties were heard no order has been passed so far, on the request of the reallocation of permit to the nominee of the petitioners. Hence this writ petition is filed and prayed for issuance of a writ mandamus or any order or direction commanding the first and second respondent to grant prepaid taxi permit to the persons suggested in Ext.P2 application within a time limit after cancelling the taxi permit said to have been issued to the 7th respondent.
4. The second respondent filed a counter affidavit contending that taxi passes were issued in the new airport at Nedumbassery as per the decision taken by the Board of Directors of the CIAL to issue passes, as a goodwill gesture and not as part of compensation package, to those who lost their houses and land during land acquisition for the airport. It is also stated that the 7th respondent vide letter dated 04.09.1999 applied for taxi permit wherein, the 7th respondent explained that the land belonged to his mother's sister was acquired for the purpose of airport. Along with the application and copies of LAC document, he produced consent letter from Smt. Leela Chandran, the eldest daughter of late Palakkad Pallipadan, which contains the signature of other daughters as well. Relying on the representation and documents produced alongwith, the second respondent had issued taxi permit to the 7th respondent in the year 1999 and the 7th respondent was operating the taxi at the airport for a long period.
5. But on receipt of Ext.P2 complaint, the second respondent conducted an enquiry as to the genuineness of the complaint as well as the document produced alongwith the application by the 7th respondent. The 7th respondent submitted an authorization letter, stating that Mr.Ravi Namboothiripad was authorized to attend the hearing since the 7th respondent was out of the country, alongwith copies of visa and passport of the 7th Respondent. Mr. Ravi Namboothiripad appeared and produced R2-(a) representation. Alongwith the said representation, he also submitted a copy of the consent letter in stamp paper given by the 3rd petitioner, beneficiary of the LAC, and her husband, Mr. C.G.Chandran, stating that they have given consent to the 7th respondent for obtaining taxi pass on the above LAC. However, the second respondent cancelled the taxi permit issued in favour of the 7th respondent and after the cancellation, 7th respondent had not approached the second respondent at any point of time after suspension of taxi permit. But the second respondent has not taken a decision as to the request for issuing a taxi permit to the nominee of the legal heirs, with consent of all other legal heirs of the deceased land owner.
6. Heard both sides. Having regard to the submissions at the bar, I find that the genuineness of the documents produced by the 7th respondent requires enquiry by the proper and competent authority under law and in view of the nature of dispute involved in this issue, this court is not inclined to take a decision as prayed for in the writ petition. But it is seen that the second respondent has not taken a decision as to the claim for issuance of taxi permit to the nominee of the legal heirs as stated in Ext.P2 representation. I am of the opinion that the issuance of a taxi permit either permanently or temporarily to the nominee of the legal heirs of Palakkadan Pallippadan is, at present, a matter exclusively within the power of the second respondent. But the second respondent has not taken a decision so far, though, the second respondent has suspended the permit issued in favour of 7th respondent and the preliminary enquiry had been over. This court is not expected to pass any such order granting permit unless and until the 2nd respondent takes a decision; but this court can compell the 2nd respondent to take a decision, in the event of inordinate delay in decision making process.
In the above circumstances, the second respondent is directed to take a decision as to the claim for issuance of a fresh permit either permanent or temporary to the petitioner's nominee and the cancellation of permit issued to the 7th respondent, at the earliest, however, within a period of three months from today.
SD/-
(K. HARILAL, JUDGE) JV