IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR THURSDAY, THE 3RD JANUARY 2008 / 13TH POUSHA 1929 OP.No. 11141 of 2003(B) ----------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ D.MANOHARAN, S/O.P.DORAISWAMI PILLAI, LAKSHMI NIVAS, PAMBANAR P.O., IDUKKI DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.K.CHANDRA MOHANDAS RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE PEERUMADE GRAMA PANCHAYAT REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE SECRETARY, PEERUMADE GRAMA PANCHAYAT, PEERUMADE, IDUKKI. BY ADV. SRI.M.V.BOSE THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON CMP NO.19141 & 24185/03 DISMISSED. 3/1/08 SD/- T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE. APPENDIX EXT.P1-TRUE COPY OF NOTICE DATED 3.3.03 ISSUED BY BY THE SECRETARY, SPECIAL GRADE GRAMA PANCHAYAT, PEERUMADE EXT.P2-TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE RENEWAL OF THE LEASE DATED 7.3.03 EXT.P3-TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 7.3.03 EXT.P4-TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY SPECIAL GRADE GRAMA PANCHAYAT, PEERUMADE DATED 26.3.03 RESPONDENTS' EXTS: EXT.R1(A)-TRUE COPY OF RESOLUTION DATED 25.3.03 BY THE PEERMADE GRAMA PANCHAYAT. // TRUE COPY // P.S. TO JUDGE T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - O.P.NO.11141 of 2003-B - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 3rd day of January, 2008. JUDGMENT The challenge in this original petition is against the action taken by the Peerumade Grama Panchayat as per Ext.P4 notice directing the petitioner to vacate from the shop room in question. The petitioner was allotted stall No.5 belonging to the Panchayat in the auction conducted in the year 2000. He was conducting a vessel mart in the above stall at a monthly rent of Rs.520/-. He was issued with Ext.P1 notice directing to remit the amount in excess of 5% of the lease rent during the year 2003- 2004, evidently for the purpose of renewal of the arrangement. It is stated that he has filed Ext.P2 application for renewal of the said lease arrangement, but without any action on the said application, Ext.P4 was issued. In the counter affidavit filed by the Panchayat, it has been pointed out that the room was required for the purpose of the public and therefore it was decided not to grant fresh renewal of the licence and actually by Ext.R1 (a) resolution, it was resolved to get back possession of the room for the use of the public. It is accordingly he was issued with Ext.P4 notice. 2. The petitioner cannot have a vested right for renewal of the lease OP 11141/03 -2- arrangement as per the terms of the lease. Further, it is evident from Ext.R1 (a) that the Panchayat proposes to get back possession of the room for the purpose of the use of the public and they are not intending to give a fresh lease or licence in respect of the room in question. Therefore, there is nothing wrong in serving Ext.P4 directing the petitioner to vacate the room. Hence, the Original Petition is dismissed. If the Panchayat proposes to let out the room either on licence arrangement or on any other arrangement, it will be done only in accordance with the rules. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) kav/ OP 11141/03 -3- T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - O.P. No.11141 of 2003-B - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - JUDGMENT 3rd January, 2008.