Dismissed

Mammootty M.K v. Padinjarethara Grama Panchayat

Kerala HC7 Dec 2017WA/1638/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ appeal challenged the Single Judge's dismissal of a petition where occupants contested the Panchayat's tender process to re-license occupied shop rooms after their annual licence expired. The High Court refused to interfere, upholding the Panchayat's right to use tender post-expiry.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed; the judgment of the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition was upheld.

Mammootty M.K Vs Padinjarethara Grama… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Kerala HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR.ANTONY DOMINIC & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU THURSDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2017/16TH AGRAHAYANA, 1939 WA.No. 1638 of 2017 () IN WP(C).16340/2017 --------------------------------------------

¶4

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C)16340/2017 DATED 30-05-2017

¶5

APPELLANT(S)/PETITIONERS:

¶6

1. MAMMOOTTY M.K AGED 52, S/O. ANDRU HAJI, MUKKANDANKANDY HOUSE, PADIJARETHARA AMSOM, WAYANAD DISTRICT. 2. SHAFEEQUE.K.M AGED 43 S/O. MOOSA,KANNOOTH HOUSE, PADIJARETHARA AMSOM, WAYANAD DISTRICT. 3. SHIBI.M.J AGED 44, S/O. M.V.JOSE, MANCHERIL HOUSE, CHERUKARA, PORUNNANNUR AMSOM, WAYANAD DISTRICT. 4. KUNJABDULLA AGED 52, S/O. MAMMU HAJI, MUTHVODAN HOUSE, KUPPADITHARA AMSOM WAYANAD DISTRICT.

¶7

5. RAMAN.N.A AGED 66, S/O. ANNAN, MANALIMOOLA HOUSE, ALLATTIL DESOM, PERIYA AMSOM, WAYANAD DISTRICT. 6. THOMAS M.P AGED 59, S/O JOHN PHILIPPOSE, MANATHOTTAYIL HOUSE, ALLATTIL DESOM, PERIYA AMSOM, WAYANAD DISTRICT. 7. ABDULLA AGED 63, S/O. KUNJAHAMMED, PARA HOUSE,MUNDAKUTTY POST KUPPADITHARA AMSOM, WAYANAD DISTRICT 8. JOHNSON.V.D AGED 53, S/O. DEVASSYA, VELLIMALA HOUSE, THERIYOD NORTH, WAYANAD DISTRICT.

¶8

WA.No. 1638 of 2017

¶9

- 2 -

¶10

9. BABY.V.T AGED 49, S/O. THOMAS, VARUPADAVIL HOUSE, PADINJARETHARA AMSOM, WAYANAD DISTRICT. 10. AYOOB.M AGED 42, S/O. IBRAHIM, MUTHUKODEN HOUSE, ARAMBATTUKUNNU POST, WAYANAD DISTRICT. 11. MANOJ KUMAR AGED 42, S/O. NARAYANAN NAIR, KOLLINGTAL HOUSE, HOUSE, PADINJARETHARA AMSOM, WAYANAD DISTRICT. 12. PHILIPPOSE AGED 66 S/O. KURIAN, MUNDUNADAKKEL HOUSE, PADIJARETHARA AMSOM, WAYANAD DISTRICT. 13. KURIAKOSE.K.V AGED 62, S/O. VARKEY, KATTEKUZHYIL HOUSE, CHERUKATTOOR AMSOM, WAYANAD DISTRICT. 14. JOHNSON.K.G AGED 50, S/O. GEORGE, KOOVAKAL HOUSE, PADIJARETHARA AMSOM,WAYANAD DISTRICT. 15. ELIAKUTTY AGED 65, W/O. JOSE, MANCHERIYIL HOUSE, PORUNNANNOOR AMSOM, WAYANAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.K.DILEEP KUMAR

¶11

RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT:

¶12

PADINJARETHARA GRAMA PANCHAYAT REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY POST PADIJARETHARA, WAYANAD DISTRICT.PIN-673575

¶13

BY SRI.K.MOHANAKANNAN, SC, PADINHARATHARA GRAMA PANCHAYAT

¶14

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07-12-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

sou.

¶16

Antony Dominic, Ag.CJ & Dama Seshadri Naidu, J

¶17

W.A. No. 1638 of 2017

¶18

Dated this the 7^th day of December, 2017

¶19

J U D G M E N T

¶20

Antony Dominic, Ag.CJ

¶21

This appeal is filed by the petitioners in W.P(C). No.16340 of 2017 against the judgment of learned Single Judge, whereby the writ petition was dismissed along with W.P(C). No.16087 of 2017.

¶22

We heard the counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent Panchayat.

¶23

The appellants filed the writ petition seeking a declaration that the invitation for re-tendering of the rooms occupied by them in a commercial building owned by the respondent Panchayat amounted to violation of the legal and natural rights. On that basis they also sought a direction from this Court requiring the Panchayat not to proceed with the tender process.

¶24

The facts of the case show that the appellants are the occupants of shop rooms in a commercial complex owned by the

¶25

W.A.1638/17

¶26

¶27

respondent. This is on the basis of licence granted on annual basis on terms and conditions that were mutually agreed upon. The period of licence expired on 31.3.2017. Much prior to that, they were put on notice in 2016 itself that they will have to vacate the premises on expiry of the licence. It is seen that on expiry of the period of licence, the Panchayat invited tenders and it is this act of the Panchayat, which would result in vacating the premises that led them to file the writ petition.

¶28

Although it is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that the Panchayat has invited tenders in the absence of any guidelines issued by the Government, in an arbitrary manner, we confess our ineligibility to accept the said contention. As we have already stated, appellants have no case that it was during the currency of the licence that they were required to vacate the premises. Secondly, it is only by a tender process that the Panchayat is now granting licence for occupation of the premises in question. In that process, not only the equality is maintained by the Panchayat, but also even the appellants are also given the opportunity to participate in the tender process. So long as the building remains that of the

¶29

W.A.1638/17

¶30

¶31

Panchayat, and the right of appellants in that is that of licensees, the Panchayat was entitled to resort to tender for granting licence for the period subsequent to the expiry of licence. It is precisely for this reason, the learned Single Judge upheld the impugned action of the Panchayat. We do not see any reason to interfere with the judgment under appeal.

¶32

The appeal fails and the same is dismissed.

¶33

Sd/Antony Dominic, Acting Chief Justice

¶34

Sd/Dama Seshadri Naidu, Judge

¶35

sou.11/12.

¶36

// True copy //

Mammootty M.K v. Padinjarethara Grama Panchayat

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mammootty M.K v. Padinjarethara Grama Panchayat

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

Baisil Attipetty @ Basil.a.G. Vs Union of India

M/S.Anchor Structurals Vs the Kerrala State Electricity Board Limited

Don Bosco Arts & Science College Vs State of Kerala

M.K.Biju Vs T K Jose

Andrew Xavier Vs Corporation of Cochin

The Principal Vs Mikhael Joseph Paul