Kerala High Court
A.Lakshmanan vs The Secretary on 4 April, 2014
Author: A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar
Bench: A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
TUESDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF MARCH 2017/7TH CHAITHRA, 1939
WP(C).No. 4049 of 2017 (E)
---------------------------
PETITIONER(S):
-------------
A.LAKSHMANAN,
AGED 40 YEARS, S/O LATE ARUKUTTY,
DURGAGOSHTAM GRAMAM, VADAKKETHARA,
CHITTUR P.O., PALAKKAD DIST, PIN - 678 101.
BY ADV. SRI.T.K.SANDEEP
RESPONDENT(S):
--------------
1. THE SECRETARY, CHITTUR THATHAMANGALAM MUNICIPALITY,
CHITTUR-THATHAMANGALAM MUNICIPALITY,
AMBATTUPALAYAM, CHITTUR COLLEGE P.O.,
CHITTUR, PALAKKAD DIST - 678 101.
2. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF FISHERIES,
DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES,
MALAMPUZHA-II, PALAKKAD - 678 651.
3. STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES,
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 01.
R1 BY ADVS. SRI.K.P.VIJAYAN
SRI.V.N.HARIDAS
R2 & R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.MANU RAJ
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 28-03-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
msv/
WP(C).No. 4049 of 2017 (E)
--------------------------
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
-----------------------
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 4.4.2014 BETWEEN THE
PETITIONER AND THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPTS ISSUED BY THE CHITTUR-
THATHAMANGALAM MUNICIPALITY PURSUANT TO THE PAYMENTS
MADE BY THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 23.2.2016 TO THE
1ST RESPONDENT.
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS
-----------------------
EXT.R1(a): TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DTD.8.4.2014 OF THE
1ST RESPONDENT.
EXT.R1(b): TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DTD.2.6.2015 MADE BY THE
JUNIOR HEALTH INSPECTOR.
EXT.R1(c); TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DTD.24.8.2016 MADE BY THE
JUNIOR HELATH INSPECTOR.
EXT.R1(d): TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION TO EXTEND THE LEASE PERIOD
DTD.27.10.2016.
EXT.R1(e): TRUE COPY OF THE NOTE PLACED BEFORE THE MUNICIPAL
COUNCIL TO REVIEW THE EXT.R1(d).
EXT.R1(f): TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION OF THE MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
DTD.26.11.2016.
//TRUE COPY//
P.S.TO JUDGE
Msv/
A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, J.
.............................................................
W.P.(C).No.4049 of 2017
.............................................................
Dated this the 28th day of March, 2017
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner participated in a local tender for obtaining the right to fish farming, in a pond that vested in, and formed part of the assets of, the respondent Panchayat. It is the case of the petitioner that on the petitioner being found to be the highest bidder for taking the pond on lease, he was granted a lease for a period of three years from 01.04.2014 to 31.03.2017 and the agreement entered into between the petitioner and the respondent Panchayat to that effect is produced as Ext.P1. It is the case of the petitioner that, although he commenced his activities of fish farming pursuant to Ext.P1 agreement, there were various factors which intervened which made it impossible for the petitioner to continue the fish farming since there were losses occasioned on account of death of fishes, caused allegedly on account of pollution of the water in the pond through discharge of waste into the pond. It is the case of the petitioner that, although he preferred a representation before the respondent Panchayat stating his -2- W.P.(C).No.4049 of 2017 grievances and seeking for an extension of the lease period beyond 31.03.2017, the representation did not receive consideration for a considerable period of time. However, by Ext.R1 (d) resolution of the respondent Panchayat dated 27.10.2016, the petitioner is stated to have been informed by the respondent Panchayat that a decision had been taken to extend the lease period to cover the year 2017-2018 also. It is the case of the petitioner that immediately thereafter, he procured additional fish seeds for farming and introduced the said seeds in the pond that was leased out to him. Thereafter, when no positive steps were taken by the respondents to extend the lease in his favour, the petitioner approached this Court through the present writ petition seeking, inter alia, a direction to the respondents to extend the lease period for one year from 31.03.2017.
2. A counter affidavit has been filed by the 1st respondent wherein it is stated that, pursuant to Ext.P1 agreement entered into with the petitioner, the petitioner did not satisfy the dues to the respondents for the lease that was granted to him. The details of the arrears of rental from the petitioner are also referred to in -3- W.P.(C).No.4049 of 2017 the counter affidavit. It is further pointed out that Ext.R1(d) decision of the Panchayat, was subsequently cancelled by Ext.R1(f) decision dated 26.11.2016, and therefore, the petitioner cannot claim an extension of the lease period from 01.04.2017 for a further period of one year. It is also stated that the respondent Municipality has since conducted a fresh auction for the period 2017 to 2019 and they have already identified a successful bidder for the award of the lease for the subsequent period. The averments in the counter affidavit are refuted by the petitioner through a reply affidavit that is filed wherein, it is stated, that although the petitioner also attempted to participate in the fresh auction that was conducted for the grant of lease for the period from 2017 to 2019, he was not permitted to participate at the said auction, by the respondents.
3. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader as also the learned Stranding counsel appearing for the respondent Municipality.
4. On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the -4- W.P.(C).No.4049 of 2017 case and the submissions made across the bar, I find that, in the matter of grant of lease of properties belonging to the Municipality, the respondent Municipality is governed by the provisions of Section 215 of the Kerala Municipalities Act, read with the Kerala Municipality (Acquisition and Disposal of Property) Rules, 2000, (hereinafter referred to as 'the 2000 Rules'). A reading of the aforementioned provisions would clearly indicate that the respondent Municipality can grant leases in respect of its properties only for such period as is fixed by the Committee of the Municipality. There is no provision in the Rules, which would enable the Council of the Municipality to extend the period already fixed by the Council while granting the lease. In fact, the Rules clearly indicate that a lease for a fresh period can only be granted pursuant to a public auction that is conducted for the purpose. The intention in the Rules is apparent that it is designed to ensure that the best price is received by the Municipality for a disposal of its properties. In the case at hand, it is evident that the petitioner had defaulted in payment of amounts due to the Municipality pursuant to Ext.P1 agreement that was entered into with him. That apart, while the petitioner would contend that, immediately -5- W.P.(C).No.4049 of 2017 on being intimated of the decision of the Council dated 27.10.2016 to extend the lease period for a further period of one year from 01.04.2017, he had invested in additional fish seeds for the purposes of farming in the leased pond, and therefore, the decision of the Municipality to cancel the earlier decision was hit by the principles of promissory estoppel, I am of the view that, the principles of promissory estoppel, as urged by the petitioner cannot come to his aid in the present case for two reasons. Firstly, this is a case where the Municipality, a statutory authority, is bound by the provisions of the Municipality Act and the 2000 Rules, wherein no discretion is granted to the Municipality to extend the period of lease already granted to the petitioner. Under such circumstances, the plea of estoppal will not lie against the respondent Municipality since it is settled that there cannot be an estoppel against the law. Secondly, while it is for the petitioner to establish in cases where an estoppal is pleaded, that he had acted to his detriment by investing further amounts during the interregnum between the first decision of the Council to extend the period of lease, and the subsequent decision of the Council to cancel the earlier decision, there is no material produced in the -6- W.P.(C).No.4049 of 2017 writ petition that would indicate that he had taken any such steps to his detriment. Thus in any view of the matter, I do not see the petitioner succeeding on a plea of estoppel against the respondent Municipality. The writ petition, therefore, fails and is accordingly dismissed.
Sd/-
A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE mns/28.03.17