IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 29TH AUGUST 2008 / 7TH BHADRA 1930 WP(C).No. 25677 of 2008(F) -------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------- G.VIVEKANANDAN, S/O. S.A. GIRI, AGED 52 RESIDING AT EDATHOTTIL VEEDU, ALUVA. BY ADV. SRI.P.GOPAKUMARAN NAIR SRI.C.S.DIAS SRI.N.K.SUBRAMANIAN RESPONDENT: --------------- PERUMABAVOOR MUNICIPALITY, MUNICIPAL OFFICE, PERUMBAVOOR, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. BY ADV. SRI.V.M.KURIAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. =============== W.P.(C) NO. 25677 OF 2008 F ==================== Dated this the 29th day of August, 2008 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is an evictee from a shop bearing No.R-4, which was on the ground floor of the vegetable market complex owned by the respondent Municipality. Subsequently, he was evicted as the Municipality wanted to reconstruct the vegetable market with a multi storied building. This writ petition has been filed on the ground that though the petitioner and other similar persons were offered to be rehabilitated in the new building, Municipality was proceeding to auction the rooms in the new building denying them the benefit of rehabilitation. 2. The case was posted to today in order to enable the standing counsel for the Municipality to take instructions in the matter. On instructions, standing counsel tells me that all those vendors like the petitioner who were occupying shutter rooms in the vegetable market complex have been decided to be rehabilitated in the new building. It is stated that the rooms will be allotted on the basis of lots and the petitioner's name has been included in the list at Sl.No.22 of those included in the lot. It is also submitted that all the 48 persons will be WPC 25677/08 :2 : rehabilitated on this basis. With the submission of the respondent as above, though the grievance of the writ petitioner should be redressed, counsel for the petitioner complains that being a grain merchant, he should be accommodated in the ground floor itself. 3. In my view, petitioner cannot claim any vested right to be accommodated in any particular portion of the building. I also do not find any such commitment made by the Municipality at any point of time. If all the 48 persons are to be rehabilitated, lot system is the most equitable way of allotting the rooms and petitioner will have to be contended with whatever room that he is getting. Recording the submission made by the standing counsel for the Municipality, writ petition is disposed of. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp