IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR MONDAY, THE 20TH JUNE 2011 / 30TH JYAISHTA 1933 WP(C).No. 16364 of 2011(U) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- C.K. ALI, CHAYAMBILAKKAL HOUSE, OLLUKKARA P.O., THIRUVANIKKAVU, TRICHUR. BY ADV. SRI.SHEJI P.ABRAHAM RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- CORPORATION OF THRISSUR, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, TRICHUR CORPORATION, TRICHUR-680 001. BY ADV. MR.KODOTH SREEDHARAN, SC. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/06/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs WP(C).No. 16364 of 2011(U) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) NO. 2635/2011 DATED 30/03/2011. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 02/06/2011 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE RESPONDENT UNDER RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 04/06/2011 ISSUED BY THE CORPORATION TO THE PETITIONER. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE rs C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C)No.16364 OF 2011 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 20th day of June, 2011 J U D G M E N T Pursuant to Ext.P1 judgment of this Court in WPC No.2635/2011, the petitioner was alloted room No.10/789 (Q) in the market complex at Mannuthy by the respondent Corporation. Alleging that in respect of the said shop room the respondents are demanding higher rate of rent and the petitioner is discriminated inasmuch as similarly situated persons are alloted shop rooms on a lesser rate rent he has filed Ext.P2 representation. The grievance of the petitioner is that without taking a decision on Ext.P2 representation the Secretary of the respondent Corporation passed Ext.P3 dated 4.6.2011 requiring him to pay licence fee of Rs.3,100/- and also to make deposit of Rs.18,600/- besides payment of Rs.8,600/-. The grievance of the petitioner is that such an order was passed without looking into the request made by the petitioner in Ext.P2. In fact, a perusal of Ext.P2 would reveal that it is not a representation and it is only an application submitted under the Right to Information Act. I WPC.No.16364/2011 : 2 : am of the considered view that if the petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P3 notice issued by the Secretary, he will have to approach the council of the respondent corporation raising such grievances. In that view of the matter, it is for the petitioner to take up such grievances before the Council of the Corporation in accordance with law. If the petitioner has any grievance with respect to the failure on the part of the competent authority under the Corporation to reply to Ext.P3, it will be open to the petitioner to take up the said grievance in accordance with the provisions under the Right to Information Act. With these observations, this writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- (C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) jma //true copy// P.A to Judge