IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 8TH JULY 2009 / 17TH ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 15434 of 2009(Y) --------------------------------------- PETITIONERS: --------------------- 1. MOHAMMED ILLYAS, TAHIRA MANZIL, KOONAM KUZHI, PUNLUR. 2. MOHAMMED YAHIYA, TAHIRA MANZIL, KOONAM KUZHI, PUNALUR. 3. MOHAMMED EESA, TAHIRA MANZIL, KOONAM KUZHI, PUNALUR. 4. MOHAMMED ASLAM, TAHIRA MANZIL, KOONAM KUZHI, PUNALUR. BY ADV. MR.V.PREMCHAND. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE PUNALUR MUNICIPALITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PUNALUR MUNICIPALITY, PUNALUR. 2. THE SECRETARY, PUNALUR MUNICIPALITY, PUNALUR. 3. THE MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, PUNALUR MUNICIPALITY, PUNALUR. R1 TO R3 BY MR. B.KRISHNA MANI , S.C. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/07/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C).No.15434 of 2009-Y = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 8th day of July, 2009. JUDGMENT 1.This writ petition is filed by four brothers who are tenants of different shop rooms of the first respondent Municipality. They have agreed to pay a rent at a particular rate and have executed agreements in favour of the Municipality. Later, they filed representation to the Secretary to reduce the rent. That was, obviously, impermissible in view of the rent fixed in terms of the decision of the Council of the Municipality and because rental agreements were also entered into, in terms thereof. It is stated by the learned counsel for the Municipality that as of now, the petitioners have defaulted payment of rent, at least, for about six months. The representation of the petitioners for reducing the rent was answered by the Secretary stating WP(C)15434/09 -: 2 :- that it cannot be done in view of the existing decision of the Council and also the agreements between the parties. The petitioners, therefore, filed "appeals" against that decision. The Secretary issued a communication stating that those appeals could not be considered in view of the already existing decision of the Council on the issue. 2.The point of law raised is that the Secretary has himself decided the appeals against his decision. This is apparently a non-existing ground. This is because, there was no legal provision under which the petitioners could seek downward revision of rent by making a request to the Secretary as against the existing contract between the parties. Not only that, there is no provision in the law providing for an appeal against the decision of the Secretary and therefore, whatever the petitioners had filed as "appeals" before the Municipal Council are not appeals in the eye of law. I do not find any ground either to interfere WP(C)15434/09 -: 3 :- with the stand taken by the Secretary or issue any direction for consideration of the so-called appeals of the petitioners. The writ petition fails. The same is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. Sha/090709 -true copy- P.S.to Judge.