IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN MONDAY, THE 22ND NOVEMBER 2010 / 1ST AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 30222 of 2010(C) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- C.ABOOBACKER, S/O.MOHAMMED KUTTY, AGED 54 YEARS, SEENA MANZIL, NEAR POLY QUARTERS, ANGADIPURAM, PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.M.SYAM KUMAR SMT.KRIPA ELIZABETH MATHEWS SRI.V.N.HARIDAS RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE PERINTHALMANNA MUNICIPALITY, PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, REP. BY IT'S SECRETARY - 679 322. 2. THE SECRETARY, PERINTHALMANNA MUNICIPALITY, PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-679 322. ADV. SRI.P.K.VIJAYAMOHANAN FOR R1-2 SMT.ANITHA MATHAI MUTHIRENTHY FOR R1-2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. --------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 30222 OF 2010 -------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of November, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner was the licencee of shop room No.50 in the Perinthalmanna Municipal Bus Stand Shopping Complex owned by the Perinthalmanna Municipality. The said shopping complex was demolished and a new shopping complex was put up during the year 2007. There were series of writ petitions between the other licencees and the local authority, which ultimately resulted in the State Government issuing Ext.P2 Government order dated 13.3.2007 whereby it was directed that persons who were evicted from the old shopping complex will be accommodated in the new shopping complex. The licencees of the old shopping complex were thereupon accommodated in the new shopping complex when the old shopping complex was demolished. The grievance voiced by the petitioner is that he alone has been discriminated against by denying him a room in the new shopping complex put up during the year 2007. In this writ petition the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents to allot him a shop room in the new complex. 2. The respondents have filed a counter affidavit. It is stated that as the petitioner had defaulted payment of the licence fee, he WPC No.30222/2010 2 was evicted way back on 22.12. 2005 and that the arrears of licence fee was realised from him by resorting to coercive steps. It is stated that the petitioner who was evicted way back on 22.12.2005 is not entitled to claim the benefits flowing from Ext.P2 Government order or the decision taken by the Municipality to accommodate the licencees of the old shopping complex in the new shopping complex for the reason that when the said decision was taken, the petitioner was not a licencee, he having been evicted on 22.12.2005. It is stated that the petitioner who was forcibly evicted for non payment of licence fee cannot be treated as an old licencee who continued in the shopping complex till it was demolished. 3. I heard Sri. V.M.Syam Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. P.K.Vijayamohanan, learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents. I have also gone through the pleadings and the materials on record. A reading of the writ petition would indicate that though the petitioner was an existing licencee of the old shopping complex, he was not alloted a room in the new shopping complex. On the other hand, the counter affidavit filed by the respondents discloses that the petitioner was evicted from the old shopping complex on 22.12.2005 for non-payment of the licence fee and that he was not a licencee after 22.12.2005. In Ext.P2 the WPC No.30222/2010 3 Government ordered to accommodate the existing licencees in the new shopping complex. The petitioner who was evicted on 22.12.2005, cannot in my opinion claim that he should be treated as a licecee who was doing business in the old shopping complex, when the new shopping complex was put up in the year 2007. Therefore, the plea of discrimination put forward by the petitioner is untenable. The petitioner who was evicted on 22.12.2005 cannot in my opinion be given the same treatment as was extended to other licencees who were doing business in the old shopping complex. The writ petitioner can in my opinion only participate in the auction if an auction of the right to occupy the vacant shop rooms, if any, is held and cannot claim that he should be rehabilitated in the new shopping complex. The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed with the above observation. P.N.RAVINDRAN, (JUDGE) vps WPC No.30222/2010 4 WPC No.30222/2010 5