Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Salt Movement and Others Vs. State of Kerala and Another

Salt Movement and Others vs State of Kerala and Another

Type Court Judgment Court Delhi Decided Aug 16, 2000
~4 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/701783

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Delhi High Court
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
CW. No. 3717/2000
Subject
Property;Tenancy;Trusts and Societies

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226--Seeking quashing of decision of leasing out portion to private channel on perpetual lease--Lease rent commensurate with prevailing market rent--Petitioner cannot seek a writ of mandamus to compel State Govt. to make out cultural centre or public library--Writ petition is di...

Key legal issue
Property;Tenancy;Trusts and Societies
Acts & sections
Constitution of India - Article 226

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Salt Movement and Others

Advocate Mr. Wills Mathews, Adv

Respondent

State of Kerala and Another

Advocate Mr. C.S. Vaidyanathan, Sr. Adv. and ; Mr. G. Prakash, Adv.

Legal References

Acts
Constitution of India - Article 226
Reported In
2000(56)DRJ690

Excerpt

constitution of india, 1950 - article 226--seeking quashing of decision of leasing out portion to private channel on perpetual lease--lease rent commensurate with prevailing market rent--petitioner cannot seek a writ of mandamus to compel state govt. to make out cultural centre or public library--writ petition is dismissed in limine. - - petitioners inter alias seek of writ of mandamus to the respondents, to provide facilities like reading room, library, public relations office etc.ordermanmohan sarin, j.1. the petitioner society has filed this writ petition seeking quashing of the decision of the state of kerala to lease out a portion of travancore house, new delhi to a private television channel company, namely, m/s. malyalam communications pvt. ltd. petitioners inter alias seek of writ of mandamus to the respondents, to provide facilities like reading room, library, public relations office etc. located at the travancore house. 2. petitioners claim to be an association/forum for social, economic, cultural and intellectual uplift and welfare of one million carnalities stated to be living in delhi. 3. learned counsel for the petitioner association, mr. mathews, has urged before me that the respondents in taking a decision to lease the premises to m/s. malayalam communication ltd., running a malyalam tv channel, has belied the just and legitimate aspirations of a million keralities in delhi of having reading room, library and a cultural centre in the premises. learned counsel has also assailed the said decision on the ground that it lacked transparency as the premises are sought to be let out, without following the tender process. the action, it is alleged, is motivated to do favor to a private party which enjoys the patronage of a member of the cpm coalition govt. in kerala. learned counsel has also filed an additional affidavit, wherein the apprehension expressed is that the premises were being given on lease on a perpetual basis and the terms of agreement were not being disclosed. it was urged that it was not clear whether the agreed rent was rs. 75/- per sq.ft. p.m. or per annum. 4. mr. vaidyanathan, sr. advocate with mr. g. prakash on receiving the advance copy of the writ petition, have appeared before the court. on behalf of respondents learned senior counsel sh. vaidyanathan on instructions states that the entire travancore house had been let out to the mrtp commission on a monthly rental of only rs.16,800/- per month till 1992, when.....

Full Judgment

ORDER

Manmohan Sarin, J.

1. The petitioner Society has filed this writ petition seeking quashing of the decision of the State of Kerala to lease out a portion of Travancore House, New Delhi to a Private Television Channel Company, namely, M/s. Malyalam Communications Pvt. Ltd. Petitioners inter alias seek of writ of mandamus to the respondents, to provide facilities like reading room, library, public relations office etc. located at the Travancore House.

2. Petitioners claim to be an Association/forum for social, economic, cultural and intellectual uplift and welfare of one million Carnalities stated to be living in Delhi.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner Association, Mr. Mathews, has urged before me that the respondents in taking a decision to lease the premises to M/s. Malayalam Communication Ltd., running a Malyalam TV Channel, has belied the just and legitimate aspirations of a million Keralities in Delhi of having reading room, library and a cultural centre in the premises. Learned counsel has also assailed the said decision on the ground that it lacked transparency as the premises are sought to be let out, without following the tender process. The action, it is alleged, is motivated to do favor to a private party which enjoys the patronage of a member of the CPM coalition Govt. in Kerala. Learned counsel has also filed an additional affidavit, wherein the apprehension expressed is that the premises were being given on lease on a perpetual basis and the terms of agreement were not being disclosed. It was urged that it was not clear whether the agreed rent was Rs. 75/- per sq.ft. p.m. or per annum.

4. Mr. Vaidyanathan, Sr. Advocate with Mr. G. Prakash on receiving the advance copy of the writ petition, have appeared before the Court. On behalf of Respondents learned Senior Counsel Sh. Vaidyanathan on instructions states that the entire Travancore House had been let out to the MRTP Commission on a monthly rental of only Rs.16,800/- per month till 1992, when it was got vacated. The building is presently occupied by: (a) The State Bank of Travancore (b) M/s Keltron, a State Govt. undertaking, (c) Kerala State Electricity Board, (d) Cauvery Cell of the State Govt. and lastly 2500 sq.ft. on the first floor by M/s Malayalam Communications Pvt.Ltd. He further clarified the rental of M/s Malayalam Communications Pvt. Ltd. is @ Rs.75/- per sq. ft., totalling Rs.1,50,000/- p.m. Counsel submits that the agreed rent for the premises is commensurate with the prevailing market rent in the locality. The period of the lease is of three years and not a perpetual lease as apprehended by petitioner. Learned counsel also urged that the petitioner has no locus to assail the decision of the State Govt. to let out a portion of the premises.

5. Considering that almost the entire premises are in occupation of different public sector undertakings and Departments of the State Govt., the decision of the State Govt. to let out a portion of the premises to a Private party, which would fetch commercial rent cannot be questioned in these proceedings. There is also merit in the submission of the learned counsel for the respondent that the agreed rent under the lease is commensurate with the prevailing rents in the locality. The petitioner cannot seek a writ of mandamus that the State Govt. be compelled to make out a Public Information Centre or cultural centre or a public library in the premises. The apprehensions of the petitioner that the premises have been let out on perpetual basis stand belied since learned counsel for the respondents has stated that the lease granted is only for a period of three years. Learned counsel for the respondent has also stated that the premises shall used in accordance with the statutory regulations and Municipal bye laws.

6. The writ petition has no merit and is dismissed in limine.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial