IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 21ST JUNE 2011 / 31ST JYAISHTA 1933 WP(C).No. 15483 of 2011(I) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ 1. GEORGE ALEXANDER, S/O.GEORGE, KUZHIYIL HOUSE, THAZHAKARA, MAVELIKKARA. 2. K.M. MOHAMMED KUNJU, AGED 46 YEARS, S/O.MYTHEEN KUNJU, VALIYATH KUTTIPARAMBIL CLAPPANA P.O., CLAPPANA MURI, KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 3. P.K. AMMINI, AGED 53 YERAS, W/O.K. YESODHARAN, KOTTUPALLY KIZHAKKATHIL, CHERAPALLY, KAYAMKULAM. 4. PHILIP VARGHESE, AGED 55 YEARS, S/O.P.V. PHILIPOSE, CHANDRAVIRUTHIL, PRAYIKARA, MAVELIKKARA, MAVELIKKARA VILLAGE. 5. V.M. THAMPI, S/O.V.T. THAMPI, LOVE DALE, SOUTH FORT, MAVELIKKARA, PIN – 690 101. 6. K. SASIKUMAR, AGED 44 YEARS, S/O.K.P. MADHAVAN, INDRANEELAM, KANDIYOOR, KANDIYOOR MURI, THATTARAMBALAM P.O., MAVELIKKARA- 690 103. 7. SAIDUKUNJU, AGED 50 YEARS, S/O.SULAIMAN KUNJU, LITTLE FLOWER, MEMANA, OOCHIRA P.O., MEMANA MURI, KARUNAGAPPALLY. 8. M. ABDUL AZEEZ, S/O.MAITHEEN KUNJU, KAVALIL KOTTARAM, MAVELIKKARA. 9. AJAYAN K.N., AGED 49 YEARS, THYPARAMBIL HOUSE, NEAR PRIVATE BUS STAND, MAVELIKKARA P.O., ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI. K.SHAJ, SRI.SAJJU.S. WP(C).No. 15483 of 2011(I) RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. MAVELIKKARA MUNICIPALITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MAVELIKKARA-691 101. 2. SECRETARY, MAVELIKKARA MUNICIPALITY, MAVELIKKARA-691 101. 3. MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, MAVELIKKARA MUNICIPALITY, MAVELIKKARA-691 101. BY ADV. MR.K. HARILAL, SC. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/06/2011, ALONG WITH WP(C) NO. 15494 OF 2011 AND WP(C) NO. 15512 OF 2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs WP(C).No. 15483 of 2011(I) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE NOTICE NO.R2-3511/2011 DATED 05/05/2011 ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT TO THE SECOND PETITIONER. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE APPEAL DATED 11/05/2011 FILED BY THE PETITIONERS HEREIN BEFORE THE THIRD RESPONDENT MUNICIPAL COUNCIL. EXT.P3(a): COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 02/06/2011 ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT TO THE FIRST PETITIONER. EXT.P3(b): COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 02/06/2011 ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT TO THE SECOND PETITIONER. EXT.P3(c): COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 02/06/2011 ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT TO THE THIRD PETITIONER. EXT.P3(d): COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 02/06/2011 ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT TO THE FOURTH PETITIONER. EXT.P3(e): COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 02/06/2011 ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT TO THE FIFTH PETITIONER. EXT.P3(f): COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 02/06/2011 ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT TO THE SIXTH PETITIONER. EXT.P3(g): COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 02/06/2011 ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT TO THE SEVENTH PETITIONER. EXT.P3(h): COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 02/06/2011 ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT TO THE EIGHTH PETITIONER. EXT.P3(i): COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 02/06/2011 ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT TO THE NINTH PETITIONER. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE rs C.T.RAVIKUMAR, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P(C)Nos.15483, 15494 & 15512 of 2011 -------------------------------------------- Dated 21st June, 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioners in these writ petitions have common grievances against the common respondents. The Secretary of the Mavelikkara Muncipality, the common second respondent, issued Ext.P3 series of notices (Ext.P3 series in all these writ petitions) to the petitioners requiring them to renew their licence agreements for a period of three months with 20% increase on rent and cautioning them of coercive steps in case of failure to execute such agreements and continuance in occupation including forcible locking up of the shop rooms and launching of prosecution proceedings. 2. Most of petitioners in these writ petitions have been conducting businesses in the shop rooms let out by the first respondent Municipality for more than 20 years. As per Ext.P1 and similar notices, the petitioners were required to renew the respective licence agreements only for a period of three months with effect from 1.4.2011 to 30.6.2011 with 20% increase on rent. They were also informed that in case of failure to produce the agreements within seven days from the date of WP(C).Nos.15483/2011 & connected cases 2 receipt of the notices the demised shop rooms would be locked up and re- possessed. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the petitioners have filed appeals before the Council of the first respondent Municipality. Without placing the said appeals preferred by the petitioners for consideration of the 3rd respondent Municipal Council, the second respondent issued Ext.P3 series of notices reiterating the earlier directions and requiring the petitioners to renew the licence agreements within three days. The said notices also carried a threat to the effect that in case of their failure the concerned shops would be forcibly locked and prosecution proceedings would be launched for continued unauthorized occupation. It is in the said circumstances that these writ petitions have been filed mainly challenging Ext.P3 series of notices. 3. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and also the learned standing counsel for the respondents. The learned standing counsel submitted that the impugned orders are appealable before the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions in terms of section 509(7) of the Kerala Municipality Act (for short `the Act'). It is further submitted that the Secretary has issued Ext.P3 series of notices based on a decision taken by the Municipal Council viz., decision WP(C).Nos.15483/2011 & connected cases 3 in Resolution No.2 dated 28.4.2011. In the context of the said contention, it is relevant to refer to section 509(7) of the Act which reads thus:- “509. Appeal and revision.- (7) An appeal may be preferred to the Tribunal, against any decision passed by the Council or any order or notice issued by the Chairperson or Secretary on the basis of such decision on any matter provided in Sections 310 to 508 other than Sections 390, 391, 395, 406 and 408 or the rules, bye-laws or regulations made thereunder, within thirty days from the date of passing of such decisions, order or notice.” It is obvious from a perusal of the said provision that a notice issued by the Secretary of a Municipality based on a decision passed by the Council of the concerned Municipality is appealable within 30 days from the date of passing of such decision or notice. On being aggrieved by the directions in the notices the petitioners have immediately approached this Court by filing the above writ petitions. 4. The learned standing counsel for the respondents submitted that the petitioners have committed default in payment of rent. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that it is one of the contentions and the respondents are not justified in demanding 20% increase on rent. It is further submitted that the respondents are not WP(C).Nos.15483/2011 & connected cases 4 accepting the rent at the existing rates. In the said circumstances and also taking note of the submissions made by the learned standing counsel, I am inclined to dispose of these writ petitions as hereunder:- In case the petitioners prefer appeals before the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions against Ext.P3 series of notices within 10 days from today, the Tribunal shall proceed to consider the said appeals, as if they were filed within the time stipulated under section 509 (7) of the Act. The interim order passed by this Court requiring maintenance of status quo shall continue for a period of two weeks. However, the petitioners shall, prior to the filing of the appeals, deposit the arrears of rent at the rate at which they have been paying the same subject to the orders to be passed by the Tribunal. Sd/- C.T.RAVIKUMAR Judge TKS