Briefly put the facts of the case is as follows: The petitioners' brother late Raghavan Nair was in ownership, possession and enjoyment of the property having an extent of 12.82 Ares in Sy.No.134/1 & 14 of Chowara Village. The said property had been acquired, on negotiation, by the 1st respondent for the construction of terminal for Cochin International Airport. At the time of acquisition, respondents 1 and 2 guaranteed to late Raghavan Nair that he or his family members will be issued with either a taxi permit or an employment with the 1st respondent against his Land Acquisition Certificate in accordance with the W.P. (C) No.10034 of 2014 -: 2 :-
option exercised by him. Since the late Raghavan Nair was an unmarried person, during his life time itself, he preferred an application to the 2nd respondent requesting to offer any suitable job to the 2nd and 3rd petitioners in the 1st respondent Airport. Thereafter, the 2nd petitioner herein also made a request, seeking an appointment for himself. But, later on further enquiry, it is understood that a taxi permit was unauthorizedly issued in favour of the 3rd respondent against the Land Acquisition Certificate issued to the late Raghavan Nair.
2. On getting information with regard to the taxi permit issued in favour of the 3rd respondent against Ext.P1 Land Acquisition Certificate, the 1st petitioner preferred Ext.P4 complaint before the 2nd respondent seeking cancellation of the unauthorised and illegal taxi permit held by the 3rd respondent. In response to Ext.P4 complaint, the 1st petitioner was called upon for a hearing under Ext.P5 letter issued by the 1st respondent. The 1st petitioner appeared before the said Committee and submitted before it all the evidence and apprised the officials with regard to her W.P. (C) No.10034 of 2014 -: 3 :-
grievances. But, inspite of lapse of more than 8 months, no action had been taken by respondents 1 and 2 on Ext.P4 complaint.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners advanced arguments in support of the grounds raised in the Memorandum of Writ Petition. The main thrust of his argument is that though the 1st petitioner had been heard, inspite of lapse of more than 8 months, no action had been taken on Ext.P4 complaint filed by the 1st petitioner.
4. Having regard to the averments in the petition and submissions at the Bar, it appears that the relief sought for is just and reasonable. Hence the 2nd respondent is directed to pass orders on Ext.P4 complaint within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
This writ petition is disposed of as above.
Sd/-
(K. HARILAL, JUDGE) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge