IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH MARCH 2010 / 3RD CHAITHRA 1932 WP(C).No. 31477 of 2009(D) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- ALLEPPEY SERVODAYA SANGH, REG.NO.A56/84, H.O.PALLARIMANGALAM, MAVELIKKARA -690107, REPRESENTED BY ITS ADMINISTRATOR. BY ADV. SRI.C.ANIL KUMAR SMT.A.K.PREETHA RESPONDENT(S): --------------- VAIKOM MUNICIPALITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VAIKOM. ADV. SRI.K.REGHU KOTTAPPURAM FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J ------------------- W.P.(C).31477/2009 -------------------- Dated this the 24th day of March, 2010 JUDGMENT Petitioner is an Organization working under the Kerala Sarvodaya Sangh and the Khadi & Village Industries Commission. They were occupying room No.1 in the shopping complex owned by the respondent Municipality and had vacated for reconstruction of the building. According to the petitioner, the then Secretary had entered into an agreement with them agreeing to accommodate the petitioner in the reconstructed building on terms which were adopted by the Municipality when similar eviction was ordered in 1969. 2. Petitioner states that the building was constructed. But however room was not allotted as undertaken in the agreement. They have made representations and approached this Court by filing W.P.(C).35793/2008. That writ petition was disposed of directing consideration of their representations. Finally they were informed that a room will be allotted on deposit of Rs. Three Lakhs and on payment of licence fee of Rs.1750/- per month. W.P.(C).31477/09 2 3. Petitioner did not have the amount to comply with the demand for deposit. They made representations, but were unsuccessful in persuading the Municipality to waive the condition requiring to deposit. It is in these circumstances, the writ petition has been filed. 4. According to the petitioner, on the basis on Ext.P1, they are entitled to get accommodation in the new building without any deposit. However, Municipality submits that Ext.P1 agreement was entered into by the then Secretary without authority and therefore, Municipality is not bound by the said agreement. It is stated that they have incurred huge liability for construction of the building and that repayment will not be possible unless deposits are accepted from prospective licensees. It is also their case that licence fee and the amount demanded as deposit, are concessional amounts and that therefore the petitioner should comply with the demands. 5. If the petitioner is to obtain licence from the premises owned by the Municipality it is for the Municipality to abide by W.P.(C).31477/09 3 the terms on which such licence is to be granted. In view of the contention of the Municipality that it is not bound by Ext.P1, it is for the petitioner to request the Municipality to waive or reduce the licence fee that they have already fixed. The Municipality shall thereafter, take a decision, considering the plight of the petitioner. 6. In view of the above, I dispose of this writ petition directing that it will be open to the petitioner to file a proper application before the Municipality for reduction/waiver of the deposit now demanded. It is directed that on receipt of such a representation, Municipality shall decide the matter as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within four weeks thereafter. It is directed that subject to the petitioner filing a representation as above within one week from today, status quo as on date, insofar as the allotment of the room, shall be maintained until a decision is taken by the Municipality and communicate to the petitioner. ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge mrcs