IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 25TH JUNE 2010 / 4TH ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 19939 of 2010(N) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- A.J.JOSEPH,ANATHARACKAL,RAMAPURAM PO, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.ROY CHACKO RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, SUPPLYCO KERALA STATE CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPORATION, MAVELI BHAVAN,GANDHI NAGAR,KOCHI-682 020. 2. THE SECRETARY,DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL SUPPLIES,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE REGIONAL MANAGER,SUPPLYCO, KOTTAYAM- 686 001. 4. THE ASST.MANAGER,SUPPLYCO, PALA-686 575 5. ALEYAMMA ANTONY,AERATHU HOUSE,METHIRI PO RAMAPURAM-686 576. ADV. MR.MILU DANDAPANI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/6/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S. SIRI JAGAN, J. ------------------------------ W.P.(C) No.19939 OF 2010 ------------------------------- Dated this the 25th day of JUNE, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is the owner of a building situated in Ramapuram Grama Panchayat. The Panchayat intends to convert a Maveli Store functioning at Ramapuram as a Supplyco Super Market. By Ext.P4 communication, the first respondent Civil Supplies Corporation invited proposals from the petitioner for taking the building on rent for the purpose of conducting the Supplyco Super Market. Subsequently, the officers of the first respondent inspected the premises of the petitioner. They have also issued Ext.P5 letter to the petitioner wherein the petitioner was directed to make it clear as to what is the monthly rent he expects. The petitioner's grievance in this writ petition is that even after three years, the petitioner is not being favoured with any reply in respect of the matter. He therefore seeks the following relief: “i) Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the 1st respondent to consider W.P.(c)No.19939/10 2 and decide on the issue of letting out the building of the petitioner for conducting Supplyco Super Market as set out in Ext.P11 in the light of Ext.P5 and P6, and in case of any conflict only in consultation with the local Panchayat or other institutions functioning in public interest” 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is settled law that the petitioner can enforce only a legal right in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Here, there is absolutely no legal right in the petitioner to force the first respondent to take his building on rent. All what he contends is that the lack of response from the first respondent is arbitrary and unreasonable. It is the absolute discretion of the first respondent to decide as to whether to take on rent any building whatsoever. It depends on many factors such as suitability of the building, reasonableness of the rent and the like. The petitioner cannot as of right claim that the first respondent should take the petitioner's building on rent. As such, the petitioner has no legal right to be enforced. Therefore, the writ petition is misconceived and accordingly, the same is dismissed. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE acd W.P.(c)No.19939/10 3 W.P.(c)No.19939/10 4