Partly allowed

Rejeena v. Corporation of Thrissur

Kerala HC16 Oct 2019WP(C)/8419/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court directed the Corporation of Thrissur to consider Ext.P12 representation filed by 14 petitioners for accommodation in alternate quarters before their eviction. The Court held that former contingent workers have no right to continued occupation and left factual aspects to the Corporation.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Corporation of Thrissur to consider Ext.P12 representation for alternate accommodation and pass appropriate orders within one month.

Rejeena Vs Corporation of Thrissur — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2019 / 24TH ASWINA, 1941 WP(C).No.8419 OF 2012(B)

¶5

PETITIONERS:

¶6

1 REJEENA

¶7

AGED 42 YEARS

¶8

D/O. KATHREENA, CHITTIPARAMBAN PAYYAPPILLY HOUSE, KURIACHIRA CONTINGENT QUARTERS, KURIACHIRA, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶9

2 MANI S/O. AMMINI, PUTHANVEETTIL HOUSE, KURIACHIRA CONTINGENT QUARTERS, KURIACHIRA, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶10

3 THANKAMMA

¶11

W/O. RAJU, THOPPUMPARAMBIL HOUSE, KURIACHIRA CONTINGENT QUARTERS, KURIACHIRA, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶12

4 JUSTIN

¶13

S/O. JOSE, PLAKKAL HOUSE, KURIACHIRA CONTINGENT QUARTERS, KURIACHIRA, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶14

5 ROSILY

¶15

W/O. SUBRAMANIAN, VALIYAPRAMBIL HOUSE, KURIACHIRA CONTINGENT QUARTERS, KURIACHIRA, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶16

6 AMMINI

¶17

W/O. ARUMUGHAM, THARAYIL HOUSE, KURIACHIRA CONTINGENT QUARTERS, KURIACHIRA, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶18

7 BABU

¶19

S/O. PONNAN BALAN, VALIYAVEETIL (NEELAMKAVIL HOUSE)KURIACHIRA CONTINGENT QUARTERS, KURIACHIRA, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶20

8 THRESSIA

¶21

W/O.KOCHOUSEPH, CHITTIPARAMBAN HOUSE,KURIACHIRA CONTINGENT QUARTERS, KURIACHIRA, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶22

9 PETER S/O. PAILY, KIDANGAN HOUSE, KURIACHIRA CONTINGENT QUARTERS, KURIACHIRA, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶23

WP(C).No.8419 OF 2012

¶24

¶25

10 CHAKKU S/O. RAPPAYI, KANNANKULANGARA HOUSE, KURIACHIRA CONTINGENT QUARTERS, KURIACHIRA, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶26

11 ARANJASSERY OUSEPH KURIACHIRA CONTINGENT QUARTERS, KURIACHIRA, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶27

12 V.T. SEBASTIAN S/O. THOMA, VELUKKARAN HOUSE, KURIACHIRA CONTINGENT QUARTERS, KURIACHIRA, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶28

13 BALU S/O. THANKAMANI, NACHIMATH HOUSE, KURIACHIRA CONTINGENT QUARTERS, KURIACHIRA, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶29

14 BABU

¶30

KUNDANNUR HOUSE, KURIACHIRA CONTINGENT QUARTERS, KURIACHIRA, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶31

15 PRINCY AGED 42 YEARS D/O.SEBASTIAN, VELUKKARAN HOUSE, KURIACHIRA CONTINGENT QUARTERS, KURIACHIRA, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶32

(ADDL. PETITIONER NO.15 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 16.10.2019 IN IA.2/2019.)

¶33

BY ADVS. SRI.RENJITH THAMPAN (SR.) SRI.V.M.KRISHNAKUMAR

¶34

RESPONDENT:

¶35

CORPORATION OF THRISSUR, CORPORATION OFFICE, THRISSUR, PIN-680001. REP. BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶36

R1 BY SRI. SANTHOSH P.PODUVAL, SC, THRISSUR CORPORATION

¶37

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16.10.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶38

WP(C).No.8419 OF 2012

¶39

¶40

JUDGMENT

¶41

This writ petition is filed challenging eviction notices issued to the petitioners styling then as unauthorized occupants of contingent employees quarters belonging to the Thrissur Corporation. The substantial prayer in the writ petition is for a consideration of Ext.P12 representation and for accommodating the petitioners in alternate accommodation covered by Ext.P10.

¶42

The learned counsel for the petitioners submit that

¶43

petitioners along with their families had been residing at Kuriachira contingency building of the Thrissur Corporation for long years and that their forefathers were scavengers working under the Corporation, who had been given the right to stay in the quarters with their families. It is contended that this Court in W.P.(C).No.25477 of 2011 had directed consideration of Ext.P5 representation, where a prayer was raised for accommodating the petitioners in alternate accommodations. The Corporation issued Ext.P6 notice threatening eviction of the petitioners. It is submitted that the petitioners had been continuing on the basis of interim orders of stay issued by this Court and that the request in Ext.P12 representation is liable to be considered before the petitioners are evicted.

¶44

WP(C).No.8419 OF 2012

¶45

¶46

A counter affidavit has been placed on record by the Corporation, wherein it is stated that petitioners 3,5,8 &12 had been allotted quarters only during the period 1995 and 1998. It is stated that there are unauthorized occupants in 23 out of the 51 quarters in the contingent quarters building of the Corporation. It is stated that pursuant to notice issued by the Corporation, 7 occupants had vacated the unauthorized occupation and the petitioners, who are 14 in number have approached this Court. It is stated that petitioner No.13 vacated the quarters in November 2018 and the 12^th petitioner passed away on 12.03.2019. It is further contended that there is no accommodation available for the contingent employees working in the Corporation. It is stated that the accommodation is meant for contingent workers during the period of their service and the petitioners have absolutely no right to occupy the quarters after completion of their period of service.

¶47

I have considered the contentions advanced. Those of the petitioners, who were employees of the Corporation and who had been allotted quarters on account of their employment as contingent workers by the Corporation cannot have a right to insist on continued accommodation in the quarters. Though claim

¶48

WP(C).No.8419 OF 2012

¶49

¶50

is raised by the petitioners' forefathers were scavengers and that the right to stay in the quarters was granted to them, no material is on record to prove any such rights or even the fact that the petitioners are the legal heirs of any employees of the Corporation, who were engaged in scavenging. It is submitted in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Corporation that the eviction of the petitioners have been stayed by the Government.

¶51

The above view of the matter, I am of the opinion that it is for the Corporation to take an appropriate decision on Ext.P12 representation. There will accordingly be a direction to the respondent- Corporation to take up Ext.P12 representation and to pass appropriate orders on the same within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The factual aspects of the claims raised are to be decided by the Corporation and this Court is expressing no opinion on the merits of the claims. Till such time, the interim orders passed by this Court shall remain in force.

Sd/-

ANU SIVARAMAN

JUDGE

mpm

WP(C).No.8419 OF 2012

¶57

¶58

APPENDIX

¶59

PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:

¶60

EXHIBIT	P1	TRUE COPY OF THE VICAR, ST.JOSEPH	CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY 'S CHURCH KURIACHIRA.
EXHIBIT	P2	TRUE COPY OF THE 1ST PETITIONER'S	RATION CARD ISSUED TO FAMILY.
EXHIBIT	P2 A	TRUE COPY OF THE 4TH PETITIONER.	RATION CARD ISSUED TO
EXHIBIT	P2 B	TRUE COPY OF THE 6TH PETITIONER.	RATION CARD ISSUED TO
EXHIBIT	P2 C	TRUE COPY OF THE 8TH PETITIONER.	RATION CARD ISSUED TO
EXHIBIT	P2 D	TRUE COPY OF THE 9TH PETITIONER.	RATION CARD ISSUED TO
EXHIBIT	P2 E	TRUE COPY OF THE 12TH PETITIONER.	RATION CARD ISSUED TO
EXHIBIT	P2 F	TRUE COPY OF THE 13TH PETITIONER.	RATION CARD ISSUED TO
EXHIBIT	P2 G	TRUE COPY OF THE 14TH PETITIONER.	RATION CARD ISSUED TO
EXHIBIT	P3	TRUE COPY OF THE OF THE 2ND PETIT	VOTER'S IDENTITY CARD IONER.
EXHIBIT	P3 A	TRUE COPY OF THE OF THE 4TH PETIT	VOTER'S IDENTITY CARD IONER.
EXHIBIT	P3 B	TRUE COPY OF THE OF THE 5TH PETIT	VOTER'S IDENTITY CARD IONER.
EXHIBIT	P3 C	TRUE COPY OF THE OF THE 6TH PETIT	VOTER'S IDENTITY CARD IONER.
EXHIBIT	P3 D	TRUE COPY OF THE OF THE 7TH PETIT	VOTER'S IDENTITY CARD IONER.
EXHIBIT	P3 E	TRUE COPY OF THE OF THE 8TH PETIT	VOTER'S IDENTITY CARD IONER.

¶61

WP(C).No.8419 OF 2012

¶62

¶63

EXHIBIT P3 F TRUE COPY OF THE VOTER'S IDENTITY CARD OF THE 12TH PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO DATED 5.7.2011 OF THE THRISSUR CORPORATION. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 20.7.2011 FILED BY 23 PERSONS INCLUDING THE PETITIONERS. EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE EVICTION NOTICE ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT CORPORATION DATED 14.12.2011. EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 27.1.2005 OF THE ESTATE OFFICER SOUTHERN RAILWAY. EXHIBIT P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 28.7.2006 OF THE ESTATE OFFICER SOUTHERN RAILWAY. EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE RESPONDENT REGARDING THE REHABILITATION OF ENCROACHERS DATED 11.10.2006. EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 25.10.2006 OF THE CORPORATION OF THRISSUR. EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF SECRETARY OF THE THRISSUR CORPORATION PWD 6/16504/03. EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE DOCUMENT EXECUTED BY ONE MANI, PULIKKAL HOUSE. EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 10.3.2012 TO THE MINISTER.

¶64

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:

¶65

EXHIBIT R1 A TRUE COPY OF LIST OF OCCUPANTS OF THE CONTINGENT STAFF QUARTERS AND THEIR STATUS. // TRUE COPY // P.A. TO JUDGE

Rejeena v. Corporation of Thrissur

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rejeena v. Corporation of Thrissur

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

K.v.Paul Vs State of Kerala

Society of the Sisters of Holy Cross, Vs the District Collector and Others

Rajalekshmi M. Vs State of Kerala

T.S.Abdul Latiff Vs State of Kerala

Bujair Ahammed.v Vs the State of Kerala and Others

Teh Corporate Secretary, Corporate Educational Management Vs State of Kerala