IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON THURSDAY, THE 3RD DECEMBER 2009 / 12TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 WP(C).No. 33222 of 2009(W) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- ALL KERALA ASSOCIATION OF DEAF, THRISSUR, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, ROOM NO.17, CORPORATION STADIUM, THRISSUR-680020. BY ADV. SRI.P.V.SREENIVASAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. SECRETARY, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. COMMISSIONER, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SMT.P.VIJAYAMMA FOR R1 SRI.V.KRISHNA MENON FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMAN & P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JJ. ----------------------------------------------- WP(C) No. 33222 of 2009 --------------------------------------------- Dated, this the 3rd day of December, 2009 J U D G M E N T P.R. Ramachandran Menon, J. The grievance is against the inadequate allotment of slots at Sannidhanam, Pampa and Pandithavalam to conduct tea and snacks stalls to the petitioner, who is an Association of the 'Deaf', represented by its Secretary. 2. The petitioner had approached this Court earlier, questioning the callous inaction alleged on the part of the respondents in considering the representations preferred for allotment of such stalls at Sannidhanam, Pampa, Nilakkal and Pandithavalam by filing WP(C) 24619/2009. After hearing both the sides, the said Writ Petition was disposed of as per Ext.P1 judgment dated 10.09.2009, directing the representations to have to be considered and disposed of on merits. Accordingly, after considering the representation preferred by the petitioner, the respondent Board, as per Ext.P2 proceedings, allotted one stall to the petitioner at 'Nilakkal'; which according to the petitioner is not adequate to satisfy the requirements and to safeguard the rights and interest of the class of persons represented by the petitioner. WP(C) No. 33222 of 2009 2 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the petitioner Organisation is working for the benefit for the 'Deaf' throughout Kerala and that the petitioner is legally entitled to get 3% of the stalls; which plea is mooted, placing reliance on the provisions of the 'Persons with Disabilities' (equal liberties, protection of rights and full participation) Act, 1995. Referring to the reply affidavit filed in response to the statement filed by the first respondent, it is contended that the petitioner was very much instrumental for issuance of Ext.P5 'Note' (issued by the first respondent Board), whereby the Board had resolved to implement the relevant G.O. by formulating the relevant rules in furtherance of the scope and object of the above enactment. 4. The learned Standing Counsel for the first respondent, with reference to the statement filed in this regard, submits that there is no vested right for the petitioner for allotment of stalls; despite which the matter was considered in furtherance with Ext.P1 judgment as borne by Ext.P2 and one stall was allotted at 'Nilakkal'. It is also stated that the idea and understanding of the petitioner that several stalls are still lying vacant without allotment and hence that the petitioner could be allotted necessary stalls at 'Sannidhanam, Pampa and Pandithavalam' is quite wrong and misconceived. Learned Standing Counsel points out that the concerned rooms/stalls have been left vacant, as not included in the auction conducted for this year, which was with a specific intent to provide better facilities for the free movement of the devotees and hence that the petitioner is not entitled to claim space in any of the said places for putting WP(C) No. 33222 of 2009 3 up the stall. It is also pointed out in paragraph 3 of the statement filed by the first respondent that, it was reliably understood that, during the last festival season, though the petitioner was allotted a stall at Sabarimala, the petitioner had not conducted the stall directly, but had sublet the same to another person, which is sought to be rebutted by the petitioner in the reply affidavit. 5. However, it has to be noted that the first respondent has stated in the paragraph 4 of the statement that if the petitioner is interested, 'land space' can be provided at 'Pandithavalam' for putting up a stall; subject to the condition that, it is assured that such place would be utilised by the petitioner alone and that the same would not be allotted to any other person. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the petitioner will be satisfied with the said suggestion, for the time being. 6. In the above facts and circumstances, it is for the petitioner to approach the first respondent for allotment of the 'land space' at 'Pandithavalam' and on such event, the request in this regard shall be considered and appropriate orders shall be passed by the first respondent, as expeditiously as possible. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. P.R. RAMAN, JUDGE P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE dnc