IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON MONDAY, THE 14TH MARCH 2011 / 23RD PHALGUNA 1932 WP(C).No. 33174 of 2010(V) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ----------- M/S.AJIT SPEICES, P.B.NO.319, INDIAN CHAMBER ROAD, MATTANCHERRY, KOCHI-682002, REP. BY ITS PARTNER MR.D.L.SHAH. BY SR.ADV. SRI.JOSEPH KODIANTHARA SRI.V.ABRAHAM MARKOS SRI.MATHEWS K.UTHUPPACHAN SRI.BINU MATHEW SRI.TERRY V.JAMES SRI.B.J.JOHN PRAKASH SRI.TOM THOMAS (KAKKUZHIYIL) RESPONDENTS: ------------ 1. THE CHAIRMAN & ESTATE OFFICER, COCHIN PORT TRUST, WILLINDON ISLAND, KOCHI-682003. 2. THE DEPUTY SECRETARY (ESTATE), COCHIN PORT TRUST, WILLINGDON ISLAND, KOCHI-682003. 3. THE ESTATE MANAGER, COCHIN PORT TRUST, WILLINGDON ISLAND, KOCHI-682003. BY SR.ADV. SRI.B.S.KRISHNAN SRI.K.ANAND (A.201) SMT.LATHA KRISHNAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. .............................................................................. W.P.(C) No. 33174 OF 2010 ......................................................................... Dated this the 14th March , 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner, who is a lessee of the premises belonging to the respondent Port Trust has approached this Court being aggrieved of Exts.P8 and P11 communications, seeking to direct the respondents to permit the petitioner to continue occupation of the premises till 31.12.2012. There is also a prayer to direct the respondents to extend the 'sub lease' arrangement till such time, as the sub lease was entered on the basis of the concurrence given by the Port Trust. 2. The prayers in the writ petition are resisted by the Port Trust, stating that the lease period was originally from 19.01.1979 to 18.01.2009, i.e., for a total period of 30 years. However, on expiry of the term, the same was extended till 31.12.2012, as borne by Ext.P3, which is a general order as in the case of similar leases and not confined to the case of petitioner alone. It is pointed out that the present course and steps have been necessitated, seeking vacant surrender of the premises only by virtue of subsequent developments, as stated W.P.(C) No. 33174 OF 2010 2 in the counter affidavit. It is brought to the notice of this Court that the property in question is very near to the container freight station and for the development of the said premises, the area occupied by the petitioner is also absolutely necessary. It is pointed out that, though the said area is having a total area of 20.80 cents, the petitioner is occupying only 800 sq.meters, while the remaining portion has been 'sub let' to nearly 10 persons. It is stated in paragraph 6 as follows: “It is further submitted that the premises in question comes within the definition of public premises under the provisions of Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized) Occupants Act 1971. As per Sec.15 there is a clear bar on initiation of any legal proceedings. Sec.15 says that no courts shall have jurisdiction to entertain any suit or proceedings in respect of eviction of any person. When notice is issued the petitioner can reply and has got a right of appeal to the District Court as per the provisions of the said Act. In other words, the petitioner has effective alternative remedy than to approach this Hon'ble Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and on this ground alone the above Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed.” 3. With reference to the contents of paragraph 6, the W.P.(C) No. 33174 OF 2010 3 learned Standing Counsel for the Port Trust submits that the apprehension of the petitioner that the petitioner will be evicted forthwith is not correct. The eviction sought to be made, with respect to the premises of the petitioner, is stated as to be pursued and finalised only in accordance with the provisions of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized)Occupants Acts, 1971. A show cause notice will be issued to the petitioner and the petitioner will be at liberty to submit a reply, on the basis of which, the matter will be considered by the concerned Estate Officer and appropriate orders will be issued. If the petitioner is aggrieved in any manner, it is open to the petitioner to approach the appellate authority, i.e., the District Court by filing appeal, by virtue of the relevant provisions of the statute. In the said circumstances, no interference is warranted, submits the learned Standing counsel . 4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner, with reference to the contents of the reply affidavit and Ext. P12 produced along with the said affidavit submits that, as borne by the minutes of the Board Meeting held on 24th February, 2011, the petitioner W.P.(C) No. 33174 OF 2010 4 and other similarly situated persons were given assurance as to their right to occupy the area and to continue in the premises. Reference is made to Resolution 166 , which reads as follows: “166. Chairman pointed out that he had already assured the lease holders that even after the master plan was finalized, if any party was required to move, they would be given alternative allotments elsewhere in the island and only after alternative accommodations were constructed, they would be asked to shift. Thus, there is no reason for panic or apprehensions on the part of the lease holders. He observed that the Port should do something urgently to allay the fears of the lease holders and assured that pending the finalization of the master plan, an extension in the existing leases would be considered for another 1 or 2 years, in consultation with the Ministry. A realistic assessment of the time required to complete the master plan exercise and its logical implementation should be taken into account, and based on this assessment, a proper extension should be given, in consultation with the Ministry. ” 5. In any view of the matter, the rights and liberties of the petitioner, if any, can very well be highlighted as and when the petitioner is served with a notice as stated in paragraph 6 of the W.P.(C) No. 33174 OF 2010 5 counter affidavit filed by the respondents under the relevant provisions of Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized) Occupants Act 1971. If the order to be passed by the competent authority under the said Act turns to be against the petitioner, it is still open to the petitioner to pursue the remedy by way of appeal before the District Court. In the said circumstances, this Court does not find it necessary to keep the matter pending any further. The submissions made from the part of the respondents, as contained in the counter affidavit are put on record and the matter is disposed of, relegating the petitioner to avail the alternate remedy, if and when necessitated. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. lk