Disposed

Salim T.A. v. C.G.D.A.

Kerala HC13 Jul 2022WP(C)/31878/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of two writ petitions seeking quashing of eviction notices and directions for market maintenance. It held that it could not decide on the merits immediately. The petitioners were allowed to submit representations to the authorities within three weeks, after which the authorities would act within one month, with status quo maintained in the interim.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners allowed to submit representations within three weeks; respondents to act within one month; status quo maintained in the interim.

Salim T.A. Vs C.G.D.A. — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 13^TH DAY OF JULY 2022 / 22ND ASHADHA, 1944

¶5

WP(C) NO. 31878 OF 2010

¶6

PETITIONERS:

¶7

1 SALIM T.A., SHOP NO.1 OF G.C.D.A KALOOR MARKET STALL, KALOOR, KOCHI-682017.

¶8

2 K.A. ANWAR, SHOP NO. 43 OF G.C.D.A.

¶9

KALOOR MARKET STALL, KALOOR, KOCHI-682017.

¶10

3 A.A. RAFEEQE, SHOP NO. 33 OF G.C.D.A. KALOOR MARKET STALL, KALOOR, KOCHI-682017.

¶11

4 P.A. HAMEED, SHOP NO. 36 OF G.C.D.A. KALOOR MARKET STALL, KALOOR, KOCHI-682017.

¶12

5 K.J. ANTNY, SHOP NO.30 OF G.C.D.A. KALOOR MARKET STALL, KALOOR, KOCHI-682017.

¶13

BY ADV SRI.K.I.SAGEER

¶14

RESPONDENTS:

¶15

1 GREATER COCHIN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY [GCDA] REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, KOCHI,P.B.NO.2012.

¶16

2 STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001. BY ADV SRI.M.K.THANKAPPAN, SC, GCDA

¶17

SMT.DEEPA NARAYANAN, SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13.07.2022, ALONG WITH WP(C).20351/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

WP(C) NOS. 31878 & 20351 OF 2010

¶20

¶21

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶22

PRESENT

¶23

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 13^TH DAY OF JULY 2022 / 22ND ASHADHA, 1944 WP(C) NO. 20351 OF 2010

¶24

PETITIONER:

¶25

SALIM.T.A, TREASURER, G.C.D.A.KALOOR MARKET SHOP OWNERS ASSOCIATION, KALOOR,KOCHI-682017, RESIDING AT 2/639A, KUNNUMPURAM, FORT KOCHI. BY ADV SRI.K.I.SAGEER

¶26

RESPONDENTS:

¶27

1 CORPORATION OF KOCHI, REP.BY ITS SECRETARTY,CORPORATION OFFICE,KOCHI.

¶28

2 GREATER COCHIN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (GCDA) REP.BY ITS SECRETARY, KOCHI-682020, 3 STATE OF KERALA REP.BY ITS SECRETARY LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADVS. SRI.GIGIMON ISSAC SRI.A.K.JAYAPRAKASH SRI.M.K.THANKAPPAN, SC

¶29

SMT.VIDYA KURIAKOSE, GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶30

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13.07.2022, ALONG WITH WP(C).31878/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶31

WP(C) NOS. 31878 & 20351 OF 2010

¶32

¶33

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.

¶34

------------------------------

¶35

W.P.(C).Nos. 31878 and 20351 of 2010

¶36

Dated this the 13^th day of July, 2022

¶37

JUDGMENT

¶38

These two writ petitions are connected and

¶39

therefore I am disposing of these two writ petitions by a common judgment.

¶40

The prayer in W.P.(C)No.31878/2010 is

¶41

extracted hereunder:

¶42

“(a) Call for the entire records leading upto Exhibit PS, P5[a], P5[b], P5[c] & P5[d] and quash the same by issuing a writ of certiorari, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction.

¶43

(b) Issue a writ of mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction forbearing the l" respondent from collecting rent and its arrears from the petitioners till the Public Market at Kaloor is maintained in good and proper condition and adequate facilities such as common entrance to customers, street lights, adequate water necessary for clearing the market are provided.

¶44

(c) Issue a writ of mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction declaring that notices under Sec. 4 and consequential proceedings

¶45

WP(C) NOS. 31878 & 20351 OF 2010

¶46

¶47

thereon as per the Kerala Public Buildings [Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants] Act, 1968 is not applicable to the tenants like petitioners and Ext.P5 notice is null and void.

¶48

(d) Issue a writ of mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the 2nd respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P1 within the time limit fixed by this Hon'ble Court and also after hearing the petitioners.

¶49

(e) Issue such other appropriate writ, orders or direction as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”[SIC]

¶50

The prayer in W.P.(C)No.20351/2010 is

¶51

extracted here under:

¶52

“(a) Issue a writ of mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents to shift the Private Market situated at Deshabimani Junction to the Public Market maintained by the 2^nd respondent as proposed at the earliest.

¶53

(b) Issue a writ of mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents no. I and 2 to maintain the Kaloor Public Market maintained by the 2^nd respondent in proper and good condition and also direct them to provide basic facilities such as common entrance for public, water facility for cleaning, street light, the amenities and facilities required for a public market etc etc within the time limit fixed by this Hon'ble Court.

¶54

WP(C) NOS. 31878 & 20351 OF 2010

¶55

¶56

(c) Issue a writ of mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the 3^rd respondent to quantify the loss sustained because of the non-occupation of shoprooms in the Kaloor Public Market maintained by the 2^nd respondent and also the loss sustained because of the lack of proper maintenance of public market and recover the same from the erring officials of respondents no.1 and 2 without delay.

¶57

(d) Issue such other appropriate writ, orders or direction as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”[SIC]

¶58

These writ petitions are pending before this Court from 2010 onwards. The grievance of the petitioners is that the public market is not maintained by the GCDA and the Kochi Corporation. The counsel for the petitioners submitted that, nobody can enter into the building because of the lack of maintenance.

¶59

This Court is not in a position to decide these matters. The present position is not available. If there is any grievance to the petitioners about the maintenance issue, the petitioners are free to submit a representation before the respondents and if such representations are received, the GCDA and the Kochi

¶60

WP(C) NOS. 31878 & 20351 OF 2010

¶61

¶62

Corporation will do the needful in accordance to law.

¶63

Therefore, these writ petitions are disposed of in the following manner:

¶64

i. The petitioners are free to submit representations narrating their grievance before the GCDA and the Kochi Corporation, within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶65

ii. Once such representations are received, the GCDA and the Kochi Corporation will do the needful in accordance to law and pass appropriate orders in it, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the representations.

¶66

iii. Till final orders are passed in the

¶67

representations, the status quo as on today shall continue.

¶68

Sd/-

¶69

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE

¶70

¶71

WP(C) NOS. 31878 & 20351 OF 2010

¶72

¶73

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 31878/2010

¶74

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶75

EXHIBIT P1	A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION
	NO.7607/C4/04/GCDA DT.21-0-2004 BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P2	A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION
	ISSUED BY PALOLI MUHAMMEDKUTTY TO SRI.OOMMEN CHANDY DT.2-1-2009.
EXHIBIT P3	A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY JUSTICE SRI.V.R.KRISHNA IYER TO CHIEF MINISTER DT.26-04-2010.
EXHIBIT P4	TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY PROF.K.V.THOMAS TO THE PETITIONER DT.17-07-2009.
EXHIBIT P5	A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE UNDER SEC.4 OF THE KERALA PUBLIC BUILDING [EVICTION OF UNATHORIZED OCCUPANTS]
	ACT, 1968 ISSUED IN RESPECT OF THE 1ST PETITIONER DT.4-10-2010.
EXHIBIT P5(A)	A TRUE COPY OF THE INTIMATION NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE 2ND PETITIONER DT.1-10-2010.
EXHIBIT P5(B)	A TRUE COPY OF THE INTIMATION NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE 3RD PETITIONER DT.10-10-2010.
EXHIBIT P5(C)	A TRUE COPY OF THE INTIMATION NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE 4TH PETITIONER DT.10-10-2010.
EXHIBIT P5(D)	A TRUE COPY OF THE INTIMATION NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE 5TH PETITIONER DT.10-10-2010.
EXHIBIT P6	A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 1.2.2010.

¶76

WP(C) NOS. 31878 & 20351 OF 2010

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

EXHIBIT P1	A TRUE COPY OF THE ALLOTMENT ORDER
	ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE
	PETITIONER DT.9-04-2001.
EXHIBIT P2	A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION
	SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE
	THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED NIL.
EXHIBIT P3	A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED NIL.
EXHIBIT P4	A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION
	ISSUED BY SRI.V.S.ACHUTHANANDAN TO SRI.CHERKALAM ABDULLA DT.25-8-2004.
EXHIBIT P5	A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION
	ISSUED BY PALOLI MUHAMMEDKUTTY TO SRI.OOMMEN CHANDY DT.2-1-2009.
EXHIBIT P6	A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY
	JUSTICE V.R.KRISHNA IYER TO CHIEF MINISTER DT.26-04-2010.
EXHIBIT P7	A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION
	ISSUED BY PROF.K.V.THOMAS TO THE
	PETITIONER DT.17-07-2009.
EXHIBIT P8	A TRUE COPY OF THE NEWS ITEM
	PUBLISHED IN MATHRUBHUMI NAGARAM DAILY DT.5-5-2010.

¶81

RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS : NIL

¶82

//TRUE COPY//

¶83

PA TO JUDGE

Salim T.A. v. C.G.D.A.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Salim T.A. v. C.G.D.A.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohammed Musthafa A.K Vs Perinthalmanna Municipality

Mary Stephen, Vs State of Kerala

Mary Jomol K.J., Vs Ezhupunna Grama Panchayath

C.v.Abraham Vs the District Panchayath

C.v.Abraham Vs the District Panchayat

Muhammed Hashir.T., Vs Revenue Divisional Officer