IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 7TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 18TH MAGHA 1932 WP(C).No. 3911 of 2011(L) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- KARUNAKARAN K, KAREETHARAYIL HOUSE, THEKKENADA P.O, VAIKOM. BY ADV. SRI.J.JULIAN XAVIER SRI.FIROZ K.ROBIN RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, IRRIGATION (G&P) DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695001. 2. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, IRRIGATION DIVISION, KOTTAYAM 686001. 3. ASST.EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, IRRIGATION SUB DIVISION, KADUTHURUTHY 686604. 4. THE TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, VAIKOM 686 141. GOVT.PLEADER SRI.P.N.SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 3911 OF 2011 ===================== Dated this the 7th day of February, 2011 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is running a milma booth in the property belonging to the Irrigation Department. He is aggrieved by Ext.P4 notice issued by the 3rd respondent requiring him to remove the milma booth before 7/2/2011. According to the petitioner, reasonable time should have been given to him for shifting the milma booth. 2. A reading of Ext.P4 itself show that, on an earlier occasion, when the petitioner was called upon to vacate the premises, petitioner approached respondents by filing application dated 17/3/2010 requesting for extension of time. That was granted and even after the expiry of the extended period, he did not vacate from the premises. It was therefore that the District Collector has passed order dated 2/2/2011 that the petitioner should be evicted. Such being the case, petitioner can have no legal right to claim continued occupation and therefore, this Court will not be justified in finding fault with Ext.P4. 3. Be that as it may, having regard to the submission now WPC No. 3911/11 :2 : made by the petitioner that he needs time only to shift from the present premises, I direct that, on the production of a copy of this judgment, the 3rd respondent will permit the petitioner to continue at the present place for two weeks from 7/2/2011. 4. Petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment before the 3rd respondent for compliance. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp