IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.H.L.DATTU & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER FRIDAY, THE 29TH AUGUST 2008 / 7TH BHADRA 1930 W.A.No. 1796 of 2008 ----------------------------------- AGAINST THE INTERIM ORDER IN WPC.20838/2008 DATED 27/08/2008 .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER: ------------------------------------- A.K.SASHIKUMAR, AGED 41 YEARS, S/O.GOPALAN, R/AT KOILERIYAN HOUSE, AVIKKARA, KANHANGAD P.O. KASRAGOD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.KODOTH SREEDHARAN RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: ----------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, SC/ST DEPARTMENT, GOVT. SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHPURAM-1. 2. DISTRICT COLLECTOR AND CHAIRMAN, DHANWANTHARI KENDRAM, KASARAGOD. 3. DHANWANTHARI KENDRAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, KASARAGOD. 4. KERALA STATE CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. ASSISTANT MANAGER, SUPPLYCO, KASARAGOD. R1 & R2 BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.K.MEERA R4 & R5 BY ADV.SMT.MOLLY JACOB THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: H.L.DATTU, C.J. & A.K.BASHEER, J. ------------------------------------------- W.A.No.1796 of 2008 ------------------------------------------ Dated, this the 29th day of August, 2008 JUDGMENT H.L.Dattu, C.J. Aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Single Judge refusing to grant an interim order in W.P.(C) No.20838 of 2008 dated 27th August, 2008, the petitioner in the writ petition has presented this writ appeal. (2) The order passed by the learned Single Judge reads as under: “The petitioner presses for an interim order. However, in view of the averments in the statements submitted by the respondents, I am not inclined to grant the interim order prayed for. Accordingly, the prayer for interim relief is rejected.” (3) Petitioner is before this Court in W.P.(C) No.20838 of 2008, being aggrieved by the action of respondents 1 to 3 in permitting the 4th respondent in the writ petition to run a super market and medical store in the building where the petitioner had been conducting a canteen for the benefit of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in the Dhanwanthari Centre, which is a society incorporated under the provisions of the Societies Registration Act, 1860. (4) According to the petitioner, the canteen was earlier run by the Dhanwanthari Centre and thereafter it was run by a committee consisting WA.No.1796 of 2008 2 of the employees belonging to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. It is stated that at present the petitioner and his associates who are members of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, is running the canteen. It is further alleged that the petitioner and ten others have contributed Rs.20,000/- each and out of which a sum of Rs.60,000/- is lying in deposit with the Dhanwanthari Centre. It is further stated that the respondents have now decided to allot the premises to the Civil Supplies Corporation to conduct a super market and medical store. It is further alleged that the petitioner has not defaulted in paying either the electricity charges or the rentals. Lastly, it is asserted that the allotment of the premises to the Civil Supplies Corporation for running a super market and medical store is against the objects of the society enumerated in Ext.P1 bye-laws. (5) The third respondent in the writ petition had stated before the learned Single Judge that the petitioner has committed default in payment of rentals and also the electricity charges. It was further brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge that in spite of the expiry of the licence period on 14.9.2005, in view of the decision of the executive committee, the petitioner was allowed to run the canteen for a further period of eleven months. (6) It is stated that the workers working in the canteen had made a representation that the licence should be issued in the name of one WA.No.1796 of 2008 3 Sri.K.Mohanan and in fact, the licence was renewed in the name of Sri.Mohanan, but he has defaulted in depositing the security amount, nor the petitioner has consented for transfer of the amount deposited by him in his name. They further allege that the Municipality has closed down the canteen for want of licence and that this fact was not intimated to the Dhanwanthari Centre by the petitioner, nor he has returned the furniture, utensils, etc. It is further stated that the petitioner has already handed over the keys of the premises to the District Collector. The assertions made by the contesting respondent is not disputed by the petitioner nor his learned counsel. (7) The learned Single Judge, keeping the aforesaid aspects of the matter in view and also being of the opinion that the petitioner is not conducting any business in the premises in question, has thought it fit to refuse to grant the interim relief sought for by the petitioner. (8) In view of the facts stated by us, in our opinion, the learned Single Judge is justified in refusing to grant the interim prayer. (9) The writ petition is still pending before this Court. If for any reason, the learned Judge comes to the conclusion that the action of the third respondent is contrary to Ext.P1 bye laws, at the time of disposal of the writ petition, he would definitely direct the respondents to restore the possession of the premises in question to the petitioner. WA.No.1796 of 2008 4 (10) In that view of the matter we do not see any error in the order passed by the learned Single Judge which would call for our interference in appeal. Therefore, the writ appeal requires to be rejected and it is rejected. (11) Consequently, I.A.No.795 of 2008 also stands rejected. Ordered accordingly. (H.L.DATTU) CHIEF JUSTICE (A.K.BASHEER) JUDGE vns