IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 4TH JUNE 2010 / 14TH JYAISTHA 1932 WP(C).No. 13088 of 2010(I) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- VIJAYAMMA BABY,W/O.D.BABY, THUNDUPARAMPIL @ LAKSHMI NIVAS,NADUVILE VILLAGE, VAIKOM TALUK,KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SMT.A.SREEKALA RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE VAIKOM MUNICIPALITY,REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE SECRETARY,THE VAIKOM MUNCIPALITY. ADV. SRI.K.REGHU KOTTAPPURAM FOR R1,2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR,J. ------------------------------------- W.P.(C)No.13088 of 2010 --------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 4th DAY OF JUNE, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner is aggrieved by the denial of the request to grant Bunk No.2 in the Municipal Bustand for conduct of her business. According to the petitioner, from 1969 onwards petitioner has been continuing the business in the said bunk. In the light of the proposal of the Municipality to construct a new building under the IDSMT project, the petitioner was directed to vacate the building on condition that a similar room will be provided in the new building along with other shop owners. It is averred in the Writ Petition that accordingly the petitioner continued her business till the month of May, 2006. It is pointed out that in May, 2006, respondents demanded arrears of rent from the petitioner and forcibly took away the key from the petitioner. It is stated that she paid the arrears later. Exhibit P3 is the subsequent application filed by the petitioner for permission to conduct her business in the said bunk. 2. It is alleged by the petitioner in paragraph 9 of the Writ Petition that the respondents have entrusted the bunk to one Gouri Kochaniyan for conducting business. Later the new building was constructed and inaugurated on 29.9.2009. Some of the rooms have W.P.(C)No.13088/10 -2- been allotted to various parties and two rooms are still vacant. The petitioner requires a room as per the alleged agreement with the Municipality at the time of vacating the bunk. 3. Heard the learned Standing Counsel for the Municipality. It is averred in the statement filed by the Municipality that the petitioner had removed the bunk voluntarily and the Municipality has not removed it. It is also submitted that Gouri Kochaniyan is provided a bunk in the newly established building near the Bus stand. It is also pointed out that since she is a new allottee of bunk No.2, that bunk cannot be granted to the petitioner. After the completion of the shopping complex, the second stage is to be commenced for the purpose of which a sum of Rs.one Crore is set apart in the budget which was approved by the Council. It is also pointed out that there is no possibility of providing another bunk at this juncture. It is further mentioned that the Municipality is willing to provide room to the petitioner without auction on receipt of the minimum deposit as well as rent decided by the Municipality, if the petitioner submits an application. Finally it is pointed out that the Municipality is unable to provide room after reducing the fixed deposit and rent as demanded by the petitioner. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted W.P.(C)No.13088/10 -3- that the applications Exhibits P5 and P6 are pending without any action. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the Municipality that Exhibit P5 has not been received, but Exhibit P6 has been received. 5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner will make an application immediately for allotment of a room as suggested by the Municipality. On receipt of the application, the same will be considered by the Municipality and appropriate reply with regard to the allotment of rooms will be given to the petitioner expeditiously. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. No Costs. T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE. dsn