IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 15TH JUNE 2011 / 25TH JYAISHTA 1933 WP(C).No. 13794 of 2007(P) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- NAFISA ISMAIL, WIFE OF LATE ISMAIL, PANIKKASSERY HOUSE, P.O. MANNUTHI, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE CORPORATION OF THRISSUR, THRISSUR, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. C.K.HAMSA, CHAYAMPILAKKAL HOUSE, THIRUVANI KAVU, OLLURKARA. ADV. SRI.RENJITH THAMPAN FOR R2 SMT.P.A.ANITHA FOR R2 SRI.K.P.VIJAYAN FOR R1 SRI.V.M.SYAM KUMAR FOR R1 SMT.KRIPA ELIZABETH MATHEWS FOR R1 SRI.V.N.HARIDAS FOR R1 BY G.P.SRI.ANTONY MUKKATH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13/06/2011, THE COURT ON 15/06/2011 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 13794 of 2007(P) PETITIONER'S EXTS: EXT.P1: COPY OF RESOLUTION DTD.4.3.95 PASSED BY OLLUKKARA PANCHAYAT EXT.P2: COPY OF RESOLUTION DTD.24.7.2000 OF OLLUKKARA PANCHAYAT EXT.P3: COPY OF JUDGMENT DT.4.11.2003 OF THIS COURT IN OP 24003/00 EXT.P4: COPY OF REPRESENTATION DTD.6.9.2004 FROM THE PETITIONER TO RESPONDENT. EXT.P5: COPY OF JUDGMENT DTD.7.10.2004 IN WP(C) NO.29183/04 EXT.P6: COPY OF ORDER DTD.21.11.06 ISSUED BY R1. EXT.P7: COPY OF TENDER NOTICE DTD.12.4.2007 PUBLISHED IN DESABHIMANI DAILY ON 15.4.2007 RESPONDENT'S EXTS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE S. SIRI JAGAN, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.13794 OF 2007 ---------------------------------------------- Dated this the 15th day of June, 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioner's late husband was a meat vendor in the old Mannuthy Market Complex constructed by the 1st respondent Corporation of Thrissur. That old market building was demolished and a new building was constructed. According to the petitioner, the petitioner's husband was occupying three rooms. But, the petitioner was offered two rooms. Out of the same, one of the said rooms is occupied by the 2nd respondent. The other two rooms were also not handed over to the petitioner. In spite of all these, the 1st respondent has issued Ext.P7 notice for auctioning the rooms. It is under the above circumstances, the petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking the following reliefs: “a) Issue a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ or order quashing and setting aside Exhibit P7; b) Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ or direction directing the 1st respondent to allot a suitable room to the petitioner in the 1st floor of the new market shopping complex. c) to issue a writ of mandamus or other W.P.(C)No.13794/07 2 appropriate writ, order or direction directing the 1st respondent to hand over vacant possession of Room No.Z-11 to the petitioner, forthwith” 2. In view of Ext.P6 resolution of the council to allot two rooms to the petitioner, I passed the following interim order on 24.4.2007. “ The learned Standing Counsel takes notice for the 1st respondent. Issue notice by speed post to the 2nd respondent. There would be a direction to the 1st respondent to see that the petitioner gets the shop rooms allotted to her as per Ext.P6 within three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. I also record the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent that the shop rooms allotted to the petitioner have not been put in auction as per Ext.P7”. 3. Despite that interim order, neither the 1st respondent nor the 2nd respondent has chosen to file any counter affidavit to controvert the averments of the petitioner in the writ petition. In the above circumstances, I am inclined to dispose of the writ petition in terms of the interim order. Ordered accordingly. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE acd W.P.(C)No.13794/07 3 W.P.(C)No.13794/07 4