Disposed

Private Bus Operators Association, Mala Unit v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC13 Jun 2012WP(C)/6128/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition by a private bus operators association challenging an unpaid rent eviction notice issued by the Mala Grama Panchayath. The court directed the petitioner to file a reply to the notice. Upon receipt, the Panchayat Secretary must hear the petitioner and pass orders, during which the notice shall remain in abeyance.

What did the court decide?

Directed the petitioner to file a reply to the eviction notice (Ext.P6) within two weeks. The notice is to remain in abeyance until the Panchayat Secretary hears the petitioner and passes orders withi

Private Bus Operators Association, Mala Unit Vs State of… — Landlord and Tenant | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF JUNE 2012/23RD JYAISHTA 1934

¶5

WP(C).No. 6128 of 2012 (M)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

PRIVATE BUS OPERATORS ASSOCIATION, MALA UNIT, PRIVATE BUS STAND BUILDING, MALA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESENT GENERAL SERETARY SRI.TOMY JOSE, S/O. JOSE, AGED 55 YEARS KANNAMPILLY HOUSE, KUMBIDY POOVATHUSSERY P.O. THRISSUR DISTRICT 680741

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.V.A.AJAI KUMAR

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY LOCAL ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT, SECRTARIAT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695001

¶11

MALA GRAMA PANCHAYATH (SPECIAL GRADE), OFFICE OF MALA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, MALA THRISSUR DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY 680732

¶12

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER M.MOHAMMED SHAFI

¶13

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13-062012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

W.P.(C).6128/12

¶15

APPENDIX

¶16

PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS

¶17

EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH OF THE ROOM GIVEN BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT ON LEASE TO THE PETITIONER

¶18

EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DT 10/11/1997 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT ACKNOWLEDGING THE RECEIPT OF RENT OF RS 263/- FROM THE PETITIONER FOR THE MONTH OF NOVEMBER 1007

¶19

EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DT 10/12/1997 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT ACKNOWLEDGING THE RECEIPT OF RENT OF RS 263/- FROM THE PETITIONER FOR THE MONTH OF DECEMBER 1997

¶20

EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE SAID NOTICE DT 26/2/2001 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.

¶21

EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DT 24/3/2006 PRONOUNCED BY THIS HONOURABLE COURT IN O.P. NO.6369/2001.

¶22

EXT.P6: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.D-8502/11 DT 6/3/2012 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER

¶23

/true copy/

¶24

P.A. To Judge

¶25

ANTONY DOMINIC, J

¶26

W.P.(C).6128/2012

¶27

Dated this the 13^th day of June, 2012

¶28

JUDGMENT

¶29

Despite service of notice, there is no appearance or representation on behalf of the second respondent Panchayat.

¶30

According to the petitioner, in the bus stand at Mala, the second respondent owned a shopping complex in 1995 and a room having 120 sq ft area was leased out to them for providing rest room to the employees and also for using as enquiry counter. Since then, they are in occupation of the room and that they were issued Ext.P4 notice of eviction which was challenged before this Court in O.P.9369/2001. An interim order was passed by this Court as a result of which notice was not implemented and the O.P was finally dismissed as infructuous. Recently, Panchayat made some traffic re-arrangements which were challenged by the petitioner in W.P.(C).31415/2011 and interim order of stay was obtained. Petitioner alleges that this infuriated the Panchayat and accordingly for mala fide reasons, Ext.P6 notice was issued to them describing the

¶31

W.P.(C).6128/12

¶32

¶33

petitioner to be an unauthorised occupant and requiring to vacate the room and threatening them with coercive action in the event of non compliance. It is on receipt of this notice, this writ petition was filed and this Court passed an interim order directing that Ext.P6 be kept in abeyance.

¶34

As already stated Ext.P6 has been issued on the premise that the petitioner is an unauthorised occupant. On the other hand, case of the petitioner is that since 1995, on the basis of the lease, and payment of rent which is being accepted by the respondent Panchayat, they are continuing their lawful occupation of the room. Therefore, according to them, the premise on which Ext.P6 was issued is incorrect.

¶35

In my view, if these are the contentions of the petitioner, petitioner should have filed a reply to Ext.P6 and once a reply is filed, it is for the Panchayat to verify the facts and pass final order in the matter. Of course, notice is seen issued on the basis of a decision taken by the Panchayat Committee. However, once the reply is filed, it

¶36

W.P.(C).6128/12

¶37

¶38

is for the Secretary to consider the same and the Secretary will have to necessarily decide the issue untrammelled by any decision taken by the Panchayat.

¶39

Therefore, I dispose of this writ petition directing that within two weeks from today, petitioner will file their reply to Ext.P6 and on its receipt, Secretary of the Panchayat will hear them and pass orders in the matter. This shall be done within four weeks thereafter. It is ordered that until the aforesaid process is completed, no further action shall be taken on Ext.P6.

¶40

Sd/- ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE

¶41

mrcs

¶42

/true copy/ PA To Judge

Private Bus Operators Association, Mala Unit v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Private Bus Operators Association, Mala Unit v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ramesh Kumar Vs Dr.F.Subbayah

The Muthoot Plaza Airpots Operations Vs Shri R.S. Gujral, Secretary to Government

State Bank of India Vs K.a.Thomas

Nm.Fathima Vs Commercial Tax Officer

Narayanan Nair K.G. Vs State of Kerala

Viyani Enterprises Pvt.Ltd. Vs the District Collector