IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN MONDAY, THE 20TH DECEMBER 2010 / 29TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 37791 of 2010(Y) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------ LALITHAKUMARI, JAYA NIVAS, POOCHEDI VILAYIL, KARAKULAM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.D.AJITHKUMAR RESPONDENTS: --------------------- 1. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. CORPORATION OF THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 3. THE REVENUE OFFICER, CORPORATION OF THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. N.LEELA, S.L.BHAVAN, T.C.6/3503, KURUVILAKKADU, KODUNGANOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 BY SPECIAL GOVT. PLEADER, SRI.C.M.SURESH BABU R2 BY ADV. SRI.P.K.MANOJ KUMAR, SC. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: VK P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. --------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 37791 OF 2010 -------------------------- Dated this the 20th day of December, 2010 J U D G M E N T Late Sukumaran Nair, husband of the fourth respondent, was the licencee of Stall No.285 of Connemara Market, Palayam, Thiruvananthapuram. It appears Sri. Sukumaran Nair had assigned the right to occupy the aforesaid shop room to the petitioner as per the original of Ext.P1 and that the petitioner was in occupation of the said stall. Sri. Sukumaran Nair passed away in the year 2007. Thereupon, the fourth respondent applied for transfer of the shop room to her by Ext.P4 letter dated 27.2.2010. The said request was granted. The fourth respondent was informed that she will have to execute a fresh agreement incorporating the terms set out in Ext.P4 within 7 days failing which the licence will be cancelled and possession of the shop room resumed. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Council of the Corporation. That appeal was rejected by order dated 25.6.2010. The petitioner thereupon filed a revision petition before the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions. By Ext.P5 order passed on 1.10.2010, the Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the petitioner before the WPC No.37791/2010 2 Council was not maintainable and that the remedy of the petitioner, if she is aggrieved, is to move the Government under section 57 of the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short). The petitioner thereupon filed Ext.P6 petition before the Government seeking cancellation of the decision, evidenced by Ext.P4. This writ petition was thereafter filed seeking a direction to respondents 2 and 3 to keep in abeyance Ext.P4 till a decision is taken by the Government on Ext.P6 appeal. 2. I heard Sri. D.Ajith Kumar, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. The fact that the fourth respondent's husband was the licencee of the disputed shop room is not disputed. Under clause (c) of sub section (2) of section 215 of the Act a licence in respect of a shop room belonging to the Corporation can be granted only by public auction or tender except in the case of renewal of the licence or rehabilitation of a licensee. The petitioner is admittedly not a legal heir of the licencee. The legal heir of the licencee is the fourth respondent, his wife. As per the conditions of the licence, the licencee had no right to transfer possession of the shop room to strangers or induct strangers into possession thereof. Therefore, the petitioner cannot on the strength of Ext.P1 claim any right over the WPC No.37791/2010 3 shop room. On the death of the licencee, his legal heirs became entitled to the licence. The Government cannot in my opinion exercise the power conferred on it under section 57 and direct the local authority to take a decision in favour of the petitioner in violation of the laws. Section 57 does not empower the Government to relax the rigor of section 215 and to direct the Corporation of Thiruvananthapuram to put the petitioner in possession of the disputed shop room. In such circumstances, I find no merit in the plea made by the petitioner that she is entitled to have Ext.P6 appeal heard and disposed of and to remain in possession of the shop room till the appeal is heard and disposed of. I accordingly hold that there is no merit in the writ petition. The writ petition fails and is dismissed. P.N.RAVINDRAN, (JUDGE) vps WPC No.37791/2010 4 WPC No.37791/2010 5