Dismissed

Saroja Rengan v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC15 Oct 2015WA/2030/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ appeal challenged the Single Judge's dismissal of a petition seeking shop allotment following eviction for road widening. The court upheld the Single Judge's finding that the allotment was not arbitrary as it considered frontage criteria, finding no discrimination against the appellant.

What did the court decide?

The writ appeal, filed against the Single Judge's order dismissing WP(C) 29108/2014, was dismissed for lack of merits.

Saroja Rengan Vs State of Kerala — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.ASHOK BHUSHAN & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2015/23RD ASWINA, 1937

¶5

WA.No. 2030 of 2015 () IN WP(C).29108/2014

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 29108/2014 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 17-07-2015

¶7

APPELLANT(S)/PETITIONER:

¶8

SAROJA RENGAN AGED 61 YEARS W/O. RENGAN, SHUNMUGHA, KATTIL VEEDU TC 14/2225, ORUVATHILKOTTAH, ANAYARA P.O. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.THOMAS ABRAHAM SMT.MERCIAMMA MATHEW SRI.ASWIN.P.JOHN

¶10

RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3 AND ADDITIONAL RESPONDENTS 4 AND 5:

¶11

1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT PUBLIC WOPRKS DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶12

2. THE THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (TRIDA) REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, JATA MANSION VAZHUTHACAUD, SASTHAMANGALAM P.O. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶13

3. SRI.RAJAGOPALAN NAIR

¶14

PROPRIETOR, INTERNATIONAL ELECTRONIC THAKARAPARAMBU ROAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PRESIDENT KERALA VYAPARI VYAVASAYI SAMATHI THAKARAPARAMBU UNIT.

¶15

4. BINDU ELECTRONICS THAKARAPARAMBU ROAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PO-695 001

¶16

5. VIJAYARAGHAVAN NAIR ARUNA BAKERS, THAKARAPARAMBU ROAD THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PO-695 001.

¶17

R2 BY ADV. SRI.K.A.JALEEL, SC., TRIDA BY SPL.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.GIRIJA GOPAL R4 BY SRI.SHAJIN S.HAMEED R3 & 5 BY SRI.V.A.VINOD

¶18

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28-09-2015, THE COURT ON 15-10-2015 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

WA NO.2030/15

¶20

APPENDIX

¶21

APPELLANT'S EXHIBITS

¶22

ANNEXURE 1: TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE NO.R3/247/ 2014/ TRIDA/ 4 DATED 2.7.15 SENT BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE APPELLANT.

¶23

ANNEXURE 2: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DT 10.8.15 SUBMITTED BY THE APPELLANT IN REPLY TO ANNEXURE 1 NOTICE.

//True Copy//

PS to Judge

ASHOK BHUSHAN, C.J. &

¶28

A.M. SHAFFIQUE, J.

¶29

================

¶30

W.A. No. 2030 of 2015

¶31

==================

¶32

Dated this, the 15^th day of October, 2015

¶33

J U D G M E N T

¶34

Shaffique, J.

¶35

This appeal is filed by the petitioner in WP(C) No.29108/2014 challenging judgment dated 17/7/2015 by which the writ petition has been dismissed. The writ petition was filed seeking for a direction to the 2^nd respondent to allot shop rooms strictly following Ext.P3 guidelines in the matter relating to rehabilitation of the shop owners who were evicted from Thakaraparambu road and for other consequential reliefs.

¶36

The petitioner was one of the allottees of a shop room in a rehabilitation proposal prepared by the Thiruvananthapuram Development Authority (for short 'TRIDA'). Government proposed to construct fly overs through the Thakaraparambu road connecting power house road crossing the M.G. Road at Thiruvananthapuram. The persons who were conducting business in the said area had to surrender their shop rooms and therefore,

¶37

W.A. No.2030/15

¶38

-:2:-

¶39

the rehabilitation scheme was adopted. Complaint of the petitioner is that though she had surrendered a shop room having an area of 55 m² and the 3^rd respondent was holding only 30 m² , the 3^rd respondent was allotted an area of 24.91 m² and the petitioner, 22.39 m² . Petitioner contends that as per the original proposal prepared by TRIDA, she was entitled to get shop room No.7 having an area of 23.34 m² and the 3^rd respondent shop room No.6 with an area of 18.79 m² . This action of the 2^nd respondent, according to the petitioner, was arbitrary and unsustainable.

¶40

Statement was filed by the standing counsel on behalf of TRIDA inter alia stating that 18 traders were to be rehabilitated in the rehabilitation block and 16 traders have given in writing their consent to occupy the allotted shops. The petitioner and another agency have not submitted any objection to the alloted shop so far and, except the petitioner, all other traders accepted the allotment list finalised by TRIDA. It is further stated that the frontage width and nature of shop room held by the traders in the old premises were taken as a criteria for allotment. Petitioner's shop was having only a frontage width of 1.80 metres. The shop

¶41

W.A. No.2030/15

¶42

-:3:-

¶43

room allotted to the petitioner is having a front width of 2.30 metres. The front width of shop room of 3^rd respondent was 4 metres whereas he was alloted a shop room having a front width of 3.01 metres. Similarly, the frontage of each shop room was taken as the criteria and a reasonable approach had been taken by the 2^nd respondent and all of the allottees have accepted the same.

¶44

The learned Single Judge after considering the matter in detail observed that almost all the shop owners had consented to the allotment except the petitioner and she always claimed allotment of shop No.7, which is now allotted to the additional 5^th respondent. Petitioner was allotted the shop room having 22.39 m² taking into account the frontage she originally had in the earlier building. The materials on record clearly indicate that respondents 3 and 5, who were other allottees, had better frontage than that of the petitioner's shop. Having regard to the aforesaid finding of fact and after perusal of the records, the learned Single Judge observed that the earlier shop room of the petitioner comprised of two levels inside the same room and the frontage of the existing shop room is more than what the

¶45

W.A. No.2030/15

¶46

-:4:-

¶47

petitioner earlier had, and in the said circumstances, there is no arbitrariness in the action of the 2^nd respondent.

¶48

Heard the learned counsel for the appellant, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the State and its authorities and learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the 2^nd respondent.

¶49

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that there is gross discrimination in the matter relating to the allotment of space to the petitioner. On a perusal of the judgment of the learned Single Judge, it could be seen that the entire files relating to the allotment had been verified and it was found that the allotment of space was based on certain criteria and one important criteria was regarding the frontage area in the earlier premises of each of the allottees. This apparently is a valid criteria adopted, as the frontage of the shop rooms is definitely an important aspect to be looked into which will give access to the shop rooms for their customers. That apart, the finding is that the petitioner was holding an area of 55 m² in the earlier premises at two levels inside the same room. This is also a factual aspect which requires to be considered by the competent authorities

¶50

W.A. No.2030/15

¶51

while allotting the shop rooms.

¶52

Under such circumstances, we do not think that any discrimination had been meted out against the appellant in regard to allotment of the shop rooms. The learned Single Judge having gone through the entire factual aspects in detail and has arrived at a specific finding, we do not think that in exercise of appellate jurisdiction, any grounds are made out by the appellant to enable us to exercise the appellate jurisdiction in order to set aside the aforesaid judgment. There being no merits in the appeal, the same is dismissed.

¶53

Sd/- ASHOK BHUSHAN, CHIEF JUSTICE

¶54

Sd/-

¶55

A.M. SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE

¶56

¶57

//True Copy//

¶58

P.S to Judge

Saroja Rengan v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saroja Rengan 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

State of Kerala Vs K. Mani

K.Soudhamini Kunjamma Vs the Superintendent of Police,Pathanamthitta

A.P Raghavan Vs State of Kerala

Commisioner of Customs Vs Firdouse International Trading

The Chief Manager Vs H.P.Shabhu

Khadeeja Vs Dewan Housing Finance