An informal agreement or meeting minutes do not establish enforceable rights unless formalized legally.

JUDGMENT

S.R.Bannurmath, C.J.

Aggrieved by the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 27th July, 2009 rejecting W.P.(C) No.2402 of 2007 filed by the petitioners claiming right of job from the first respondent, the present writ appeal is filed.

2. It is contended that the lands of the appellants/petitioners and several others have been acquired by the Government for the purpose of putting up an industry and that there was an agreement between the first respondent and the evictees like the appellants that as their livelihood is taken away, one member of each family would be provided with a job. It is contended that though several such jobs were given to others, appellants were deprived of the same and as such they are entitled to get a writ of mandamus from this Court in this regard.

3. The learned Single Judge has declined to grant the relief and hence the present appeal. It is mainly contended that the appellants are mainly aggrieved by Ext.P8 minutes of the meeting held on 21.9.2006 by the representatives of various political parties in the presence of Minister for Industries and Water Resources and this minutes is binding on everybody. It is also contended that as Ext.P8 was the subject matter of a writ petition before this Court and since this Court has upheld the correctness of Ext.P8, the appellants are also entitled for the relief. Alternatively, it is submitted that, in this regard, the appellants have given a representation (Ext.P10) before the Government and atleast the same be directed to be considered.

4. We do not find any merit in any of the contentions raised. At the outset, it is to be noted that no agreement, as stated to have been entered into between people like the appellants and respondent No.1 beneficiary of the acquisition has been produced. What is relied upon is the minutes of the meeting said to have been taken between various members of the political parties, M.L.As. and the Industries Minister. This minutes cannot take the form of any decision or agreement said to have been taken by the Government and binding on the first respondent Company. Moreover, as the appellants have received compensation for the lands acquired and in the absence of any agreement as such, as already noticed, in our view, the learned Single Judge was justified in declining to grant relief. So far as the alternative prayer for consideration of Ext.P10 is concerned, as the very case of the appellants is that the agreement was between the first respondent and the appellants, it is not open for the Government also to consider the same as it will be an exercise in futility.

Hence, considering the case from any angle, we do not find any merit in the writ appeal and the writ appeal is dismissed.

S.R.Bannurmath, Chief Justice Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, Judge vns