Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH MONDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF JANUARY 2022 / 11TH MAGHA, 1943 WP(C) NO. 12725 OF 2021 PETITIONERS:
1 JAYAPRAKASH PRABHU AGED 47 YEARS AGED 47, S/O.RAJAMANI PRABHU, 8/1107, T.D.SOUTH GATE, KOCHI-682 002, REPRESENTED BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, MR.PRAKASH, AGED 52, S/O.BHASKARAN NAIR, PUNNAMADATHIL (CMRRA-154), MANIMALA ROAD, EDAPPALLY, KOCHI-682 024. 2 SUDHEESH C.S AGED 41 YEARS S/O. SUDHAKARAN, CHITTADIYIL HOUSE, POOIKKARA P.O, THRISSUR 680 306 REPRESENTED BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER MR. PRAKASH, AGED 52, S/O. BHASKARAN NAIR, PUNNAMADATHIL (CMRRA-154) MANIMALA ROAD, EDAPPALLY, KOCHI 682 024 BY ADV K.R.VINOD
RESPONDENTS: 1 THE GREATER COCHIN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (GCDA) REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, SAHODARAN AYYAPPAN ROAD, KADAVANTHRA P.O, KOCHI 682 020 2 THE SECRETARY GREATER COCHIN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (GCDA) SAHODARAN AYYANPPAN ROAD, KADAVANTHRA P.O, KOCHI 682 020 BY ADVS. VIPIN P.VARGHESE ADARSH MATHEW KEVIN MATHEW GEORGE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31.01.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO. 12725 OF 2021 2
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 31st day of January, 2022 The petitioners were successful bidders for running cafeterias in the building owned by the 1st respondent-Greater Cochin Development Authority (GCDA). The petitioners executed lease deeds with the GCDA and deposited `4,81,200/- and `7,80,000/- respectively with the respondents towards Security Deposit.
2. The petitioners state that they could not run the
cafeteria even for a single day because necessary D & O licences were not issued by the Corporation of Kochi. D & O licences were not issued as the structure constructed by the respondents was illegal and unlawful. In the circumstances, the petitioners requested the respondents for refund of their Security Deposit. The refund was declined.
3. Thereupon, petitioners filed W.P.(C) Nos. 27514 and 27545 of 2016. The said writ petitions were disposed of by this WP(C) NO. 12725 OF 2021 3
Court directing the respondents to repay the amounts collected from the petitioners as Security Deposit, within a period of two months. The question as to damages and interest was left open to be decided in appropriate proceedings.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted
that the petitioners have spent a total amount of more than `63,00,000/- for constructing all infrastructure and interior works of the proposed cafeteria in the leasehold premises. Even after spending such a huge amount, the petitioners could not run the cafeteria due to the mistake and illegality committed by the respondents. Therefore, the petitioners are entitled to get damages from the respondents. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are undoubtedly entitled for payment of interest on the amount of deposit kept with the 1st respondent.
5. Respondents 1 and 2 filed counter affidavit. Respondents 1 and 2 submitted that the amount of loss of more than `63,00,000/- projected by the petitioners is inflated. WP(C) NO. 12725 OF 2021 4 The petitioners have no right to claim any compensation from the respondents. For adjudication of damages and
compensation, the petitioners have to approach the Civil Court. Extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court cannot be invoked for granting the reliefs prayed for by the petitioners. Pursuant to the directions contained in Ext.P2, the respondents have returned the Security Deposit to the petitioners.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel for the 1st respondent.
7. The petitioners are claiming damages for the loss
incurred by them due to the misrepresentation and mistakes committed by the 1st respondent. The petitioners also claim interest on the amounts which were taken by the 1 st respondent as Security Deposit. As far as compensation/damages are concerned, the actual loss, if any, sustained by the petitioners will have to be assessed through Civil or other appropriate adjudicatory proceedings. This Court cannot decide the issue which indeed involves questions of fact.
WP(C) NO. 12725 OF 2021 5
8. As far as the claim for interest is concerned, this
Court finds that the petitioners had earlier approached this Court filing W.P.(C) Nos.27514/2016 and 27545/2016 and this Court disposed of the writ petitions directing the respondents to refund the Security Deposit, within a period of two months. This Court not only did not pass any orders on payment of interest but also observed that the issue is left open to be decided in appropriate proceedings.
9. This Court finds that a claim of interest alone cannot
be adjudicated in writ proceedings, when the issues involved are disputed questions of fact. The petitioners will have to approach the Civil Court or any other appropriate Forum for compensation as well as for any claim of interest. In the circumstances, no relief can be granted to the petitioners. The writ petition is, however, disposed of making it clear that if the petitioners approach any Civil Court or other appropriate Forum, the period during which the petitioners have been agitating the issue before this Court should be WP(C) NO. 12725 OF 2021 6 excluded in the matter of calculation of limitation, treating that the petitioners were bonafide litigating before a wrong Forum.
sd/- N.NAGARESH JUDGE hmh WP(C) NO. 12725 OF 2021 7 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 12725/2021 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 THE COPY OF THE ESTIMATION REPORT PREPARED BY THE CHARTERED ENGINEER DATED 25-03-2021 Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WP(C) NO 27514/2016 AND WP(C0 NO. 27543/2016, DATED 02-03-2020 Exhibit P3 THE COPY OF THE INTEREST CALCULATION STATEMENT PREPARED BY THE PETITIONERS RESPONDENT’S EXHIBITS NIL