IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 10TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 19TH BHADRA 1931 WP(C).No. 8303 of 2008(L) ------------------------------------ PETITIONERS: --------------------- 1. MOHAMMED A.K., KANNUR CENTRAL MARKET, KANNUR MUNICIPALITY, KANNUR DT. 2. C.HASSAN KUNHI, -DO- -DO- 3. B.K.ASHRAF, -DO- -DO- 4. V.K.ABDUL HAMEED, -DO- -DO- 5. T.HASSANKUNHI, -DO- -DO- 6. C.P.SALAM, -DO- -DO- 7. K.T.MUHAMMED ALI, -DO- -DO- 8. C.P.UMMER, -DO- -DO- 9. T.K.GANGADHARAN, -DO- -DO- 10. O.C.SHAKUNTHALA, -DO- -DO- 11. P.M.AMINA, -DO- -DO- 12. K.ABDUL SATHAR, -DO- -DO- 13. CHALIL ABDUL MAJEED, -DO- -DO- 14. P.GANGADHARAN, -DO- -DO- 15. K.ABDUL RASHEED, -DO- -DO- 16. S.SAMEER, -DO- -DO- 17. SHAIK MOIDEEN, -DO- -DO- 18. P.P.MUHAMMED KUTTY, -DO- -DO- W.P.(C). NO.8303/2008-L: 19. V.K.HAMEED, -DO- -DO- 20. A.ANOOP, -DO- -DO- 21. M.K.ABDUL RAHIMAN, -DO- -DO- 22. THAIKANDY MUSTAFA, -DO- -DO- 23. ABDUL JABBAR K.P., -DO- -DO- 24. M.T.SALEEM, -DO- -DO- 25. M.T.ABDUL MAJEED, -DO- -DO- 26. M.T.ABDUL RAFEEQUE, -DO- -DO- 27. S.ABDUL LATHEEF, -DO- -DO- 28. P.N.SUNITH, -DO- -DO- 29. P.M.MUSTAFA, -DO- -DO- 30. PALLIVALAPPIL NIZAR P.V., -DO- -DO- 31. A.P.EBRAHIM KUTTY, -DO- -DO- 32. ABDULLA P., -DO- -DO- 33. P.ABDUL RAHIMAN, -DO- -DO- 34. RAKIB, -DO- -DO- 35. C.VINOD, -DO- -DO- BY ADV. MR.M.RAMESH CHANDER. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE SECRETARY, KANNUR MUNICIPALITY KANNUR, KANNUR DT. 2. THE MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, KANNUR. REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, KANNUR, KANNUR DT. R1 & R2 BY ADV. MR.K.K.CHANDRAN PILLAI. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/09/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P(C).No.8303 OF 2008 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 10th day of September, 2009 JUDGMENT Petitioners are occupants of the Central market in Kannur municipal area. They plead that they are in possession of the respective shops, bunks etc. for more than 50 years and that they depend on the income from their activities there. Their request is for an order to let them continue in possession. Fundamentally, their need is for rehabilitation since the municipality is constructing a new building. Learned counsel for the municipality states that the petitioners would be alloted rooms if they are prepared to occupy the rooms in the new building, as may be alloted to them, on such fee/rent as may be lawfully fixed and also on deposit in accordance with law. Though the petitioners state that there may not be any substantial variation in the rent and deposit, there cannot be any direction in that regard because the ground realities has necessary to weigh even when the writ court issues directions for rehabilitation. When the question of livelihood and commerce become mixed matters, the balance has to be struck. WPC.8303/08 Page numbers The larger public interest to generate funds for an LSGI and the interest of the individual to carry on his commercial activity should be permitted to go hand in hand. With this in view, this writ petition is ordered directing that the municipality will prepare a list of eligible occupants entitled to rehabilitation, draw up a proper scheme and make allotment by fixing the deposit and fee/rent in a pragmatic way. All this will be on condition that the petitioner surrender possession as and when sought for by the municipality. Though the petitioners seek that some alternate arrangements may be made during the construction period, it is not feasible for the writ court to issue such a direction though the municipality will consider completing the building at the earliest. The writ petition is ordered accordingly. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, Judge. kkb.15/9.