IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 19TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 30TH MAGHA 1930 WP(C).No. 11931 of 2008(U) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- PANDICODE KSHEEROLPADAKA SAHAKARAN SANGH LTD. NO. D 151 (D) APCOS, MENJANYAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY BY ADV. SRI.B.S.SWATHY KUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- THE PERAMBRA SPECIAL GRADE PACHAYAT REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PERAMBRA, KOZHIKODE. ADV. SRI.R.PARTHASARATHY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W. P (C) No. 11931 of 2008 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 19th February, 2009. J U D G M E N T The petitioner is a society registered under the Kerala Co- operative Societies Act. 120 sq. ft. land belonging to the 1st respondent-Panchayat was allotted to the petitioner for setting up a shop. The petitioner alleges that the petitioner constructed a shop thereon spending a sum of Rs. 75,000/-. The petitioner claims that the petitioner has been paying rent promptly. Now, by Ext. P2, the petitioner has been directed to close the shop and hand over the keys on or before 31-3-2008 without assigning any reasons. The petitioner alleges that this is on account of the fact that the petitioner-society is now administered by a committee supported by the UDF, whereas the 1st respondent-Panchayat consists of a committee supported by the LDF. According to the petitioner, before issuing Ext. P2, no notice was issued. The petitioner therefore seeks the following reliefs: “i) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction calling for the records leading to Ext. P2 and quash the same. ii) to declare that the petitioner is legally entitled to conduct the shop room/booth P.P.VIII-871B as long as the rent is paid. iii) to declare that Ext. P2 is illegal, arbitrary vitiated with malafides and violative of the principles of natural justice hence legally unsustainable.” 2. A counter affidavit has been filed controverting the contentions in the writ petition. According to the 1st respondent, the lease was from year to year and as per Ext. R1(c) agreement, the lease period had expired on 31-3-2008. Further it is submitted that the allotment was for the purpose of a milk booth and the petitioner is no longer selling any milk but is using the shop for selling cigerattes, tobacco products and stationary items. They also state W.P.C. No. 11931/2008. -: 2 :- that the rent was in arrears which was paid only when the Panchayat resolved to terminate the lease. 3. I am not inclined to go into the rival contentions at this point of time. The petitioner has already submitted Ext. P3 before the 1st respondent-Panchayat. The Panchayat shall consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext. P3, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Till then, Ext. P2 shall not be enforced. The writ petition is disposed of as above. S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/