IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN MONDAY, THE 29TH JUNE 2009 / 8TH ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 279 of 2007(G) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ THRISSUR JILLA MOTOR & ENGINEERING MAZDOOR SANGH (BMS), THIRUVAMBADY VIVEKANANDA ROAD, THRISSUR, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY, A.C. KRISHNAN. BY ADVS.MR.RAJIT MR.RANJIT BABU RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THRISSUR CORPORATION, THRISSUR, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE SECRETARY, THRISSUR CORPORATION, THRISSUR. 3. THRISSUR GENERAL WORKERS UNION (CITU) VANCHIKULAM, THRISSUR. BY ADVS.MR.K.P.VIJAYAN FOR R1,2 MR.V.M.SYAM KUMAR FOR R1,2 SMT.C.B.SUMA DEVI FOR R1,2 SMT.KRIPA ELIZABETH MATHEWS FOR R1,2 MR.V.N.HARIDAS FOR R1,2 MR.K.B.MOHANDAS FOR R3 MR.LELLULAL T.G.THUNDATHIL FOR R3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W. P (C) No. 279 of 2007 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 29th June, 2009. J U D G M E N T The petitioner claims to be a union owing allegiance to the Bharat Mazdoor Sangh. They are aggrieved by the action of respondents 1 and 2 in demolishing a shed constructed by them by the side of the road for the purpose of housing the office of their union. The petitioner submits that respondents 1 and 2 take a discriminatory attitude in the matter, insofar the 3rd respondent-union which owes allegiance to one of the ruling parties in the State is allowed to continue to occupy another shed unauthorisedly constructed by them. The petitioner therefore seeks the following reliefs: “(a) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing Ext. P3 resolution No. R.6/24143/05 passed by the 1st respondent Corporation. (b) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding respondents 1 and 2 to demolish the illegal construction affected by the 3rd respondent in the poramboke land belonging to the 1st respondent Corporation OR in the alternative, (c) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the respondents 1 and 2 to permit the petitioner to build a temporary shed adjoining the shed of the 3rd respondent for functioning of the office for the members belonging to the petitioner's union. (d) Declare that the 1st respondent Corporation cannot selectively discriminate against various unions based on political affiliation.” 2. A counter affidavit has been filed, in which it is submitted that the petitioner has constructed the shed encroaching into the road poramboke, because of which only the action has been taken for demolition of the same. As far as the allegation that the 3rd respondent has been allowed to occupy a similar shed is concerned, W.P.C. No. 279/2007 -: 2 :- the contention in the counter affidavit of the 2nd respondent is that, that building belongs to the Corporation and the Corporation has decided to permit the 3rd respondent to use the said building for a licence fee of Rs.200/- p.m. and therefore the shed used by the 3rd respondent is not an unauthorised construction. Although the petitioner has not filed any reply affidavit, the petitioner would contend that such a contention has been taken only to protect the 3rd respondent and that construction is also an unauthorised construction as is evident from the photograph produced along with the writ petition. The petitioner points out that the alleged decision of the Corporation to allot the shed on licence to the 3rd respondent was taken on 4-1-2007, whereas the writ petition was filed on 2-1-2007. 3. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. 4. Of course, the fact that the Corporation Council has taken a decision on 4-1-2007 to grant the shed on licence basis to the 3rd respondent after the filing of the writ petition would cast some suspicion that the same was done to cover up the action in permitting the 3rd respondent to occupy the shed, while the petitioner's shed was demolished. However, a decision on the same would essentially require taking of evidence, which can be done only before an authority where the petitioner can adduce evidence. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to seek their remedies in an appropriate forum where the petitioner can adduce evidence. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/