Back
2022 Supreme(Online)(KER) 41279
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
SUNITHA KUMARI C. S., – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA, – Respondent
WP(C)/19607/2022
An expired agency cannot insist on continued operations or prevent eviction, as the governing body is entitled to reallocate responsibilities.
Headnote:
Writ - Municipal Corporation - Government Orders - Section List - The court examined the entitlement and rights of a service provider under government orders for waste management but concluded that due to the expiration of the agency's tenure, no further relief could be granted.
Fact of the Case:
A service provider, recognized by Thiruvananthapuram Corporation for waste management, sought reliefs including a writ directing the corporation to implement government orders and prevent eviction without due process, citing lack of support.
Finding of the Court:
The court noted that the agency's tenure had expired and that the corporation was shifting responsibilities to Kudumbashree units, concluding that the petitioner could not insist on continued engagement.
Issues: Whether the petitioner, whose agency tenure had expired, could demand continuation of services and prevent eviction without due process.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the corporation is obligated to implement government orders but not to obligate itself to extend expired agency tenures.
Final Decision: The writ petition was disposed of with acknowledgment of the corporation’s plans to implement government orders stage by stage.
J U D G M E N T
Dated this the 3rd day of November, 2022 The petitioner is a service provider empanelled by the Thiruvananthapuram Corporation and is now working as part of the Haritha Karma Sena of the 2nd respondent- Thiruvananthapuram Municipal Corporation. The petitioner is before this Court seeking the following reliefs.
(i) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction directing the 2nd and 3rd respondents to implement Exhibits P1 and P2 in its full letter and spirit;
(ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction directing the 3rd respondent to consider Exhibit P7 representation and pass final orders in the light of Exhibits P1 and P2, within a period of 1 month;
(iii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction directing the 2nd and 3rd respondents not to evict the petitioner from any of the ongoing duties, without following the due process of law;
(iv) Pass such any other order, direction or reliefs as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the interest of justice, equity and good conscience.
2. The petitioner would state that Exts.P1 and P2 orders govern the running of Haritha Karma Sena. The 2nd respondent has recognized the petitioner’s unit as an agency for waste management in 4 Wards in Thiruvananthapuram Municipal Corporation and has permitted the petitioner to handle inorganic waste at the backyard of Manacadu Health Circle Office. The grievance of the petitioner is that the facilities to be provided to such agencies and Kudumbashree units for carrying out the activities under Exts.P1 and P2 Government Orders , are not provided. The petitioner therefore submitted Ext.P7 representation before the Secretary to Thiruvananthapuram Corporation. The petitioner would submit that even keeping the agency apart, the petitioner is a member of the Kudumbashree unit. Therefore, the grievance raised by the petitioner is liable to be considered, contends the petitioner.
3. Standing Counsel entered appearance on behalf of the respondent-Corporation and resisted the writ petition. The respondent-Corporation pointed out that the period of the petitioner’s agency stood expired on 30.10.2022. Therefore, the petitioner as an agency selected under Ext.P1, cannot insist that the petitioner has a subsisting grievance and such grievance should be considered.
4. Standing Counsel further submitted that the Corporation is bound by Exts.P1 and P2 Government Orders . The Corporation will be implementing the provisions of Exts.P1 and P2 stage by stage.
5. Standing Counsel further submitted that subsequent to Ext.P2 Government Order, the Haritha Karma Senas in all 100 wards are now linked to Kudumbashree units. The Corporation does not intent to engage any agency for the discharge of functions, at this point of time. In that view of the matter, the prayer of the petitioner not to evict the petitioner from any of the ongoing duties without following due course of law, cannot be accepted.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader representing the 1st respondent and the learned Standing Counsel for respondents 2 to 4.
7. The petitioner represents an agency selected under Ext.P1 Government Order for discharging the functions of Haritha Karma Sena. The petitioner states that such agencies are not provided with the facilities contemplated under Ext.P2 Government Order. The non-supply of inoculum at the right time was frequently reported by the petitioner to officials. However, no fruitful result yielded. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the tenure of the petitioner’s agency has expired on 30.10.2022.
8. Standing Counsel would categorically submit that the Corporation does not intent to further engage any agencies for Haritha Karma Sena work, for the time being and Haritha Karma Senas of all the 100 Wards of the Corporation, have been linked to Kudumbashree units. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the view that the petitioner ca
