IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 21ST AUGUST 2008 / 30TH SRAVANA 1930 WP(C).No. 20055 of 2008(K) -------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------- SIBY DAVIS, MUNDADAN HOUSE, ANGAMALY P.O. BY ADV. SRI.SAIBY JOSE KIDANGOOR SRI.BENNY ANTONY PAREL RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF LOCAL ADMINISTRATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE ANGAMALY MUNICIPALITY, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, ANGAMALY. *Addl.R3. BENNY THOMSON, S/O. THOMSON, KUMBADINHAMUKKU P.O., THAZHEKKAD, CHALAKKUDY. *ADDL. R3 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 30.07.08 IN IA 9927/08 BY ADV. SRI.P.SANTHALINGAM (SR.) FOR R2 SRI.S.SHARAN FOR R2 SRI.K.V.SOHAN FOR ADDL.R3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/08/2008, ALONG WITH WPC NO. 20095 OF 2008 WPC NO. 20109 OF 2008 WPC NO. 19427 OF 2008 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C) Nos. 20055, 20095 & 20109 OF 2008 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 21st day of August 2008 J U D G M E N T Petitioners in these three writ petitions claim to have participated in the auction held in pursuance to Ext. P1 and according to them they have been allotted stalls in the Municipal Market for vending fish and vegetables. It is their case that for allotment of some of the remaining rooms, the respondent Municipality published Ext. P3 tender notice dated 9.6.2007. It is stated that in both Exts. P1 and P3, it has been made very clear that different blocks of the market are earmarked for different purposes. According to the petitioners, to the bidders who have succeeded in getting the rooms in Ext. P3, the Municipality was taking action for allotting rooms for purposes other than those specified in Exts. P1 and P3. Complaining of this they had filed representations before the Municipality and according to them as the representations did W.P.(C) Nos. 20055, 20095 & 20109/2008 -2- not yield any result these writ petitions have been filed. 2. Subsequently, additional 3rd respondent was also impleaded. Petitioners contend that the additional 3rd respondent has been allotted P(1) room in P block of the Municipal market and this particular area has been earmarked for public sale purposes. Petitioners contend that in violation of the demarcation of purposes, the additional 3rd respondent was permitted to start a meat stall. 3. It is stated that the 'P' Block where room has been allotted to additional 3rd respondent can be used only for public sale or for vegetable vending and not for any other purposes. Counsel for the Municipality endorses the contentions of the writ petitioners. It is also stated that no licence has so far been issued to the additional 3rd respondent. 4. On the other hand the additional 3rd respondent would canvass for the position that he was allotted the room without indicating any demarcation and that he had applied for a licence to the Municipality for starting a meat stall. It is his case that the Municipality did not pass any order on his application or communicate any decision within 30 days specified in Section W.P.(C) Nos. 20055, 20095 & 20109/2008 -3- 447(6) of the Kerala Municipality Act and therefore a deemed licence has accrued in his favour. It is contended that on the basis of the deemed licence he has commenced business in the stall allotted in his favour. 5. The case of the petitioners as can be seen is that the rooms in P block are earmarked for public sale and vegetable vending and that those rooms cannot be made use of for any other purposes. This stand of the petitioners is seen to be accepted to the Municipality also. If according to the Municipality the rooms in P block including room No. P(1), allotted to the additional 3rd respondent, are earmarked for public sale and vegetable vending, and that the 3rd respondent is utilizing the room against the terms of the allotment, it is always open to the Municipality to take appropriate action in this matter in accordance with law. 6. Therefore the only direction that is called for in these cases is that the Municipality shall take note of the representations made by the petitioners complaining of the 3rd respondent, the alleged unauthorised user of P(1) room in P Block and take appropriate action against the additional 3rd respondent if there is any substance W.P.(C) Nos. 20055, 20095 & 20109/2008 -4- in the complaint made by them. Needless to say that any such action shall only be with notice to the additional 3rd respondent. It is directed that the aforesaid directions shall be carried out by the Municipality as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within 6 weeks from today. Writ petitions are disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE jan/-