Augusthykutty vs Cochin International Airport Ltd

Mohammed Nias C.P.J.

The petitioner submits that his land and house was acquired for the purpose of construction of Cochin International Airport, Nedumbassery. The first respondent, Cochin International Airport Limited (“CIAL” for short) came up with a scheme for giving benefits as a measure of compensation and re-habilitation to persons whose lands were acquired for the project and the petitioner being a person eligible, applied for pre-paid taxi permit at the airport as he claimed that he had not obtained any benefits. By Ext. P1, the petitioner was directed to produce documents showing proof of his claim and by Ext. P2 he was requested to report at the HR Department of CIAL. However, by Ext. P3, CIAL informed the petitioner that on enquiry, it was found that the petitioner's son was offered with an employment with AIR India and the list of persons engaged by AIR India was also annexed and for the said reason the request of the petitioner was declined.

The petitioner makes his claim on the basis of Ext. P4 which is a letter issued by AIR India stating that there was no compensatory agreement between them and CIAL as regards the land acquisition evictees and thus, it is the submission of the petitioner that the job obtained by his son has no reference to the acquisition proceedings and therefore, the petitioner's application for pre-paid taxi permit cannot be rejected. In view of the disputes raised AIR India was impleaded as an additional 3rd respondent in the Writ Petition.

The counter affidavit filed by CIAL states that AIR India had given  a  list  of  24  candidates whose  houses  were acquired for construction of Cochin International Airport and it contains the name of the petitioner Anil.K.  as  Serial No.  19  and  by  Ext.  R1(c)  dated 19-02-2003 CIAL had specifically mentioned  that the persons who did not get any facility/benefit may submit application for pre-paid car permits. It is submitted while furnishing the list along with Ext. R1 (c) it was by an inadvertent mistake, the name of the petitioner was included though the petitioner's son had availed the benefit of employment and that it was suppressing that material fact that an application was preferred by the petitioner.

AIR India had also filed a counter affidavit taking a preliminary objection on the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that pursuant to the policy decision taken by the Government of India to disinvest its 100% holding in AIR India Limited, AIR India has ceased to become a Government Company with effect from 27-01-2022, and therefore, it is not longer a “State” under Article 12 of the Constitution of India, and therefore, not amenable to the writ jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court. On these grounds they prayed for dismissal of the Writ Petition.

I have heard Sri. Rajesh S. Subramanian, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. Benney P. Thomas, for the respondents.

Having heard the learned counsel on both sides, I am of the view that the writ petition fail for more reasons than one.

It is relevant to note that the petitioner's son was offered employment with AIR India as is evident from Ext. R1 (e) dated 8-4-2014 and the said details disclose the number of the LAC No. 268/1997 which proves that the petitioner was given the employment for having lost his property in acquisition. The petitioners argument based on Ext. P4 is that there was no agreement between CIAL and AIR India and, therefore, his engagement was independent of the fact that the properties belonging to the petitioner was acquired, cannot be countenanced. That apart, the argument of the petitioner that the bar for being considered for grant of prepaid permit would arise only his son was given a permanent job and not a temporary one, as seen from Ext. R1 (e) also cannot be accepted as there is no such difference being shown in any of the documents on record differentiating a permanent and casual engagement in the matter of grant of benefits for the evictees. All who lost the property in acquisition could not have been compensated with benefits and still further every member of the family whose properties were acquired could not have been offered benefits. It was as a social security measure that the beneficiaries schemes were introduced and the action of the CIAL in the instant case, rejecting the application of the petitioner cannot be termed as illegal for the reasons mentioned above. Though I find substantial merit in the argument of AIR India that the writ petition against them is not maintainable in view of the fact that cease to be a State, I am not considering the same in the petition as the substantial relief was claimed against CIAL.

In the result, this Writ Petition fails and it is dismissed.