IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 24TH JULY 2008 / 2ND SRAVANA 1930 WP(C).No. 17108 of 2004(J) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------ N.P. PARI, THACHARAKKAL HOUSE, KOVOOR, P.O. MEDICAL COLLEGE, CALICUT-8. BY ADV. SRI.NIRMAL SACHEENDRAN RESPONDENTS: ---------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, LOCAL ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. CORPORATION OF CALICUT, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY. *ADDL. RESPONDENT 3 IMPLEADED ADDL. R3: M.VELAYUDHAN , S/O.MEPPANATTU GOVINDAN, KOLATHMEETHAL, NELLIKODE.P.O., CALICUT. * IS IMPLEADED AS ADDL RESPONDENT 3, AS PER ORDER DATED 22/08/06 IN I.A.15952/04. ** ADDL. R4 TO R9 ARE IMPLEADED ADDL. R4: DEVI, W/O. LATE VELAYUDHAN, AGED 61 YEARS ADDL. R5: M.VIJAYALAKSHMI, D/O. -DO-, AGED 39 YEARS. ADDL. R6: M.GOPIDASAN, S/O. - DO -, AGED 37 YEARS. ADDL. R7: M.SATHEESAN, S/O. -D O -, AGED 35 YEARS. ADDL. R8: M.SUDHA, D/O. -DO -, AGED 31 YEARS. ADDL. R9: M.SUDHIKUMAR, S/O. -DO -, AGED 29 YEARS, ALL ARE RESIDING AT KOLATHMEETHAL HOUSE, NELLIKODE AMSOM.P.O., NELLIKODE, KOZHIKODE. ** ADDL. RESPONDENTS 4 TO 9 ARE IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 22/08/06 IN I.A. NO.10056/2006. BY ADV. SRI.C.M.SURESH BABU,SC,KOZHIKODE CORPN. - R2 SRI.O.V.MANIPRASAD SRI.R.SUDHISH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Rs/ ANTONY DOMINIC, J ------------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.17108/2004 ------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 24th day of July, 2008 JUDGMENT The controversy in this writ petition is regarding the allotment of room No. OG 43 (OB-G43) at the Central Market, Calicut, belonging to the Calicut Corporation. The petitioner herein was a vegetable vendor and respondents 4 to 9 are the legal heirs of deceased Velayudhan, who was also a vegetable vendor. Petitioner contended that he was a licensee at the old Central Market building and that in order to reconstruct the market building, he was called upon to vacate the premises. It is stated that during the interregnum he was alloted a temporary shed. According to him, subsequently the construction of the market was completed in 2003. WP(c).No.17108/2004 2 2. It is revealed from the statement of the corporation that, in the ground floor of the building, the construction of which is completed, there were only 54 rooms and 124 licensees were be rehabilitated. According to the Corporation, in a meeting convened by the Deputy Manager, the issue was resolved among the rival claimants for accommodation in the newly constructed building and that the petitioner alone was complaining against the allotments, on the ground that, the room alloted was on the southern side and therefore was inconvenient for carrying on his vegetable business. He had represented for a change of allotment and as it did not yield any result this writ petition was filed. 3. In the writ petition, he contended that on the eastern side of the new building there were 4 rooms lying vacant and he should be alloted any of the rooms. In this writ petition, considering the pleadings of the petitioner and the corporation, this court passed an interim order on 25th August, 2004 and on the basis of the interim order petitioner was alloted the room and where he is continuing WP(c).No.17108/2004 3 his business now. 4. Respondents 4 to 9 and the Corporation would state that the writ petition itself is premature. According to respondents 4 to 9, they had approached the civil court and filed a suit as O.S.No.493/2004, claiming allotment of the room in question. That suit was dismissed by Ext.R4(c) judgment, in view of the interim order passed by this court in this writ petition. It is stated that an appeal filed by them is pending consideration of the District Court, Kozhikode. According to the respondents 4 to 9, Ext.R4(d) and (e) are the proposals made by the Corporation for allotment of two rooms to the petitioner. Corporation also confirms that these proposals were made but however contends that the allotment to the petitioner was not finalised. It is stated that, before it was finalised, the writ petition was filed and an interim order was passed and therefore the Corporation did not proceed with the matter any further. 5. From the above, it is thus evident that by Ext.R4(d) and (e) the Corporation had only made proposal in the matter of allotment of room to the petitioner and it is at WP(c).No.17108/2004 4 that stage this stage this writ petition has been filed. 6. It is also a fact that, when the matter thus remaining unsettled, an interim order was also passed by this court and as a result of which petitioner got a room also allotted, though subject to further orders from this court 7. Though the petitioner and respondents 4 to 9 are raising rival claims for allotment of room No.0G 43(OB-G43) referred to above, since on facts I find that the Corporation is yet to take a final decision, on the allotment of room to the petitioner. Therefore, at this stage I do not think a final pronouncement on the claims raised in this writ petition is necessary as in my view, it is for the Corporation to first settle this dispute and only thereafter if the parties are still aggrieved, then only an examination of the correctness of the decision taken by the corporation in a judicial forum is necessary. Therefore the writ petition is disposed of as follows; i. Within one month from the date of production of a copy of the judgment, the respondent Corporation will consider the rival claims made by the petitioner on the one WP(c).No.17108/2004 5 hand and respondents 4 to 9 on the other, for allotment of building No.OG 43(OB-G43) and take a final decision in this matter. Before a decision is taken as above, both sides will be given notice and they will also be heard. It is also directed that while deciding the matter as above, the corporation will also take into account the relative inconvenience, if any, caused to the petitioner, if he is to occupy the rooms proposed in Ext.R4(d) and (e) as well. ii. In the meantime, until a decision is taken as above, an interim order dated 25.8.2004 will remain in force and its further continuance will depend upon the order to be passed as above. Needless to say that, while orders are passed by the Corporation, the same shall be done untrammeled by the observations made by this court in the aforesaid interim order. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE vi. WP(c).No.17108/2004 6