IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 26TH AUGUST 2008 / 4TH BHADRA 1930 WP(C).No. 26299 of 2007(E) --------------------------------------- PETITIONERS: ------------------- 1. P.S.ANILKUMAR, S/O.P.N.SREEDHARAN, PUTHENVEEDU,PIPELINE ROAD,PALARIVATTOM, KOCHI. 2. SURESHKUMAR, S/O.P.K.RAJAN, PULPRA HOUSE, PANANGAD, KOCHI. 3. T.M.SASIKALA, D/O.MADHAVAN, THEKKUMKIRAYIL,PANANGAD P.O., KOCHI. 4. GEORGE JOPSEPH, S/O.LATE P.V.JOSEPH, THALIYATH HOUSE, CHURCH LANDING ROAD, KOCHI-16. BY ADV. SRI.DINESH R.SHENOY RESPONDENT: ---------------------- CORPORATION OF COCHIN, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, O/O. CORPORATION OF COCHIN, COCHIN-11. ADV. SMT.M.K.PUSHPALATHA,SC,COCHIN CORPORATION FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.26299/2007 APPENDIX PETITIONERS EXHIBITS EXT.P1:- COPY OF THE PARTNERSHIP DEED DT. 30.1.2006. EXT.P2:- COPY OF THE RECEIPT NO.15378 DT. 8.2.2006. EXT.P2(a):- COPY OF THE RECEIPT NO.11200 DT. 25.9.2006. EXT.P2(b):- COPY OF THE RECEIPT NO.27553 DT. 23.7.07. EXT.P3:- COPY OF THE LETTER DT. 2.6.07. EXT.P4:- COPY OF THE DRAFT DEED OF RETIREMENT FORWARDED TO THE RESPONDENT. EXT.P5:- COPY OF THE COUNTER RECEIPT NO.69682 DT. 11.6.07 ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE RESPONDENT. EXT.P6:- COPY OF THE DEED OF PARTNERSHIP DT. 14.6.07, M/S. THALIYATH AND COMPANY. EXT.P7:- COPY OF THE NOTICE DT. 22.8.07 ISUED BY THE HEALTH INSPECTOR, CORPORATION OF COCHIN. EXT.P8:- COPY OF THE NOTICE DT. 23.7.07 AFFIXED ON 24.8.07 AT THE PREMISES OF THE PETITIONERS' PREMISES. /TRUE COPY/ P.S. TO JUDGE tss ANTONY DOMINIC, J. -------------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) 26299 of 2007 -------------------------------------------------------- Dated: AUGUST 26, 2008 JUDGMENT The challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P8(a). It would appear that a partnership firm consisting of petitioners 1 to 3 was allotted room Nos.1 to 3 in the North Block of Vytila Shopping Complex. It would also appar that subsequently the 4th petitioner was inducted and later the firm was re-constituted consequent on the retirement of two of the partners. That was submitted to the Corporation for its approval and the Corporation took the view that it could not be accepted. According to the petitioner, on coming to know of this stand of the Corporation, they reconstituted the firm in such a manner that all the petitioners herein continued as partners of the firm. This was by Ext.P6. However, without considering Ext.P6, the Corporation issued Ext.P8 requiring petitioners 1 to 3 to surrender the key of the rooms referred above. As Ext.P8, WP(C) 26299 of 2007 2 though styled as a notice, virtually amounted termination of the lease granted by the Corporation, resulting in the closure of their business and this writ petition was filed. 2. Ext.P8 also shows that one of the grounds indicated was that rent was in arrears. It is now conceded before me by the respondent that arrears of rent has been fully cleared and therefore that allegation in Ext.P8 no longer survives. 3. As already noticed, it is the grievance of the petitioners that while passing Ext.P8, the Corporation did not take into account Ext.P6, the reconstituted partnership firm deed, which according to them has the effect of restoring the status quo ante. It is also their case that while passing Ext.P8, they were not issued any notice nor were they given an opportunity of hearing in the matter. 4. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and also the learned counsel appearing for the Corporation, I am inclined to agree that the matters needs WP(C) 26299 of 2007 3 to be reconsidered. This is for the reason that the petitioners were not heard and that Ext.P6 was not taken into account while issuing Ext.P8. 5. For these reasons, Ext.P8 will stand quashed and the Corporation shall reconsider the matter taking into account Ext.P6 and also the fact that the petitioners have already cleared the entire arrears of rent that was due. This shall be done as expeditiously as possible, and at any rate, within eight weeks of production of a copy of this judgment. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE mt/-