IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 26TH AUGUST 2008 / 4TH BHADRA 1930 WP(C).No. 4165 of 2006(U) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------------- SHYLAJA N., D/O. INDIRA, NAKKOD PUTHEN VEEDU, PERUMPAZHUTHOOR P.O., NEYYATTINKARA. BY ADV. SRI.P.B.SAHASRANAMAN SRI.K.JAGADEESH SRI.T.S.HARIKUMAR RESPONDENT: ----------------------- THE NEYYATTINKARA MUNCIPALITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, NEYYATTINKARA. *ADDL.R2 & R3 ARE IMPLEADED: R2. K.PRIYAMVADA, ANANTHERI PUTHEN VEEDU, CHAIKOOTTUKONAM P.O., NEYYATTINKARA. (IS IMPLEADED AS ADDL.R2 AS PER ORDER DTD. 1/12/06 IN I.A.NO.11587/06) R3. S.K.JAYACHANDRAN, 'SHEEJA NIVAS', MAMPAZHAKARA, PERUMPAZHUTHOOR. (IS IMPLEADED AS ADDL.R3 AS PER ORDER DTD. 1/12/06 IN I.A.NO.6925/06) ADV. SRI.G.SUDHEER FOR R1 SRI.S.EASWARAN FOR ADDL.R3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.4165/2006 U APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE INTIMATION DTD. 18TH APRIL, 2005 GIVEN BY THE RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE RECEIPT DTD. 18/04/2005. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE RECEIPT DTD. 5/01/2006. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: EXT.R(A): COPY OF THE DECISION OF THE COUNCIL NO.4(1) DTD. 17/03/2005 OF THE NEYYATTINKARA MUNICIPALITY. EXT.R(B): COPY OF THE DECISION OF THE COUNCIL NO.4(2) DTD. 27/07/2005 OF NEYYATTINKARA MUNICIPALITY. EXT.R(C): COPY OF THE DECISION OF FINANCE COMMITTEE OF NEYYATTINKARA MUNICIPALITY DTD. 31/01/2006. EXT.R(D): COPY OF THE DECISION NO.9 DTD. 3/2/2006 OF NEYYATTINKARA MUNICIPALITY. EXT.R2(A): COPY OF THE RESOLUTION NO.P.1996/05 ISSUED BY RESPONDENTS TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.R2(B): COPY OF THE NOTICE NO.P.1996/2005 DTD. 28/06/2005. EXT.R2(C): COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENTS TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.R3(A): COPY OF COMPLAINT DTD. NIL SUBMITTED BY C.SADASIVAN PILLAI BEFORE THE SECRETARY OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT MUNICIPALITY. EXT.R3(B): COPY OF REPORT DTD. 15/06/2005 SUBMITTED BY THE SECRETARY FOR DECISION BY THE COUNCIL. EXT.R3(C): COPY OF COMMUNICATION DTD. 31/03/2005 SUBMITTED BY THE SECRETARY OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.R3(D): COPY OF COMMUNICATION DTD. 17/07/2005 ISSUED TO SHRI.SASI BY THE SECRETARY OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT. Kss ..2/- ....2..... WPC.NO.4165/2006 U RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES: ANNEXURE A1: COPY OF NOTICE NO.P-1196/2005 DTD. 28/06/2005 ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY OF THE NEYYATTINKARA MUNICIPALITY TO THE PETITIONER SMT. SHYLAJA. ANNEXURE A2: COPY OF REPLY DTD. NIL BY SMT. SHYLA TO ANNEXURE A1 NOTICE. ANNEXURE A3: COPY OF REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER HEREIN BEFORE THE SECRETARY ON 31/03/2006. /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO JUDGE Kss ANTONY DOMINIC, J. -------------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) 4165 of 2006 -------------------------------------------------------- Dated: AUGUST 26, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner submits that based on Ext.R(a) resolution passed by the Council of the respondent Municipality, Ext.P1 intimation was given to her authorising to enclose a portion of the 'Akshaya Shopping Complex' of the respondent Municipality. According to the petitioner, she complied with the terms of the allotment by making deposit of Rs.50,000/- and also advance rent. Thereafter she enclosed the premises mentioned in Ext.P1, using her own funds and started business there. But, however, the building in question was not numbered and it is on account of this, the writ petition was filed. 2. In this writ petition, this Court passed order dated 7.4.2006 directing the Municipality to number the building and that order has also been complied with. 3. The case of the municipality presently is that the WP(C) 4165 of 2006 2 period of lease granted in favour of the petitioner has expired on 17.6.2008 by efflux of time. It is also stated that an application for renewal made by the petitioner has been received and that the municipality is yet to take a decision on the application. 3. The learned counsel for the Municipality also invites my attention to a judgment of this Court in WP(C) 18646/2008 which was filed by a prospective applicant of the room in question on the allegation that without complying with the procedural formalities, the lease was going to be renewed in favour of the petitioner herein. When the case came up for consideration, the submission made by the municipality that there was no proposal for renewing the lease as alleged by the petitioner therein, was recorded and the writ petition was disposed of accordingly. 4. In view of the developments noticed above, the petitioner now seeks only a limited relief for a direction to the Municipality to consider her application for renewal of WP(C) 4165 of 2006 3 the lease which, as stated above, is made on the expiry of the existing lease and I see no reason to deny this prayer. 5. Accordingly it is directed that if, as stated by the petitioner, she has made an application and that the same has been received by the Municipality, the Municipality shall consider the same and pass orders thereon in accordance with law. With the above direction this writ petition is disposed of. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE mt/-