Allowed

Market Shop Owners Welfare Association, v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC12 Dec 2023WP(C)/11200/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed a writ petition challenging circulars issued by the Secretary of the Agricultural Urban Wholesale Market which imposed conditions contrary to lease agreements. It directed the Market Committee to hear the petitioners and decide on lease renewal and rent enhancement based on contractual terms within three months, maintaining status quo in the interim.

What did the court decide?

Ext P14 set aside; direction to the Committee of the Market to hear petitioners and take a decision on lease renewal and rent enhancement within three months; status quo maintained.

Market Shop Owners Welfare Association, Vs State of Kerala — Landlord and Tenant | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2023 / 21ST AGRAHAYANA, 1945

¶5

WP(C) NO. 11200 OF 2023

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

MARKET SHOP OWNERS WELFARE ASSOCIATION,
SHOP NO. 32 MU I/S, AGRICULTURE URBAN WHOLE SALE MARKET,
VENPALAVATTOM, ANAYARA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695029
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT - MR. SHAAM RAFI C.H.
BY ADVS.
RENJITH B.MARAR
LAKSHMI.N.KAIMAL
ARUN POOMULLI
PREETHA S CHANDRAN
ABHIJITH SREEKUMAR

¶8

RESPONDENTS:

¶9

1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, THROUGH THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF CORPORATION, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001

¶10

2 DISTRICT COLLECTOR COLLECTORATE, 2ND FLOOR, CIVIL STATION BUILDING, CIVIL STATION ROAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695043

¶11

3 DIRECTOR OF MARKETING (AGRI) DIRECTORATE OF AGRICULTURE, VIKAS BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695033

¶12

4THE SECRETARY
AGRICULTURE URBAN WHOLE SALE MARKET, VENPALAVATTOM,
ANAYARA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695029
BY ADV.SRI. RAJEEV JYOTHISH GEORGE, GP

¶13

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
12.12.2023, ALONG WITH WP(C).18888/2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

[WP(C) Nos.11200/2023, 18888/2023]

¶15

¶16

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶17

PRESENT

¶18

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
TUESDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2023 / 21ST AGRAHAYANA, 1945
WP(C) NO. 18888 OF 2023

¶19

PETITIONER:

¶20

SUDHEER ABDUL VAHEED,
RESIDING AT 12/145, NILAM NIKATHIYA, PURAYIDOM, PLAMOOD,
FC BANK, PATTOM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 004,
HAVING SHOP NO. MU I 20/S, AGRICULTURE URBAN WHOLE SALE
MARKET, VENPALAVATTOM, ANAYARA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -
695 029.
BY ADVS.
S.GOKUL BABU
RENJITH B.MARAR
LAKSHMI.N.KAIMAL
KESHAVRAJ NAIR
ARUN M.V.
ARUN POOMULLI
PREETHA S CHANDRAN
ABHIJITH SREEKUMAR
ANAND REMESH

¶21

RESPONDENTS:

¶22

1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, THROUGH THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF CORPORATION, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001

¶23

2 DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, 2ND FLOOR, CIVIL STATION BUILDING, CIVIL STATION ROAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695043

¶24

3 DIRECTOR OF MARKETING (AGRI) DIRECTORATE OF AGRICULTURE, VIKAS BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695033

¶25

4 THE SECRETARY,AGRICULTURE URBAN WHOLE SALE MARKET, VENPALAVATTOM, ANAYARA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – 695029 BY ADV.SRI. RAJEEV JYOTHISH GEORGE, GP

¶26

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
12.12.2023, ALONG WITH WP(C).11200/2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶27

[WP(C) Nos.11200/2023, 18888/2023]

¶28

¶29

JUDGMENT

¶30

The petitioner in WP(C)No.11200 of 2023 is
stated to be an Association, whose members are
involved in agricultural marketing through shops,
which they have leased from the ‘Agricultural
Urban Wholesale Market’ - of which the 4th
respondent is the Secretary.

¶31

2.The petitioner says that even though
their members are willing to abide by the
Agreements they have entered into with the
“Market”, including Ext.P3, and to renew the
lease and to pay the enhanced amounts thereunder,
the 4th respondent has been unilaterally imposing
usurious conditions, which had beyond the
contractual realm and which thus operate to the
detriment of their members. They point out to
Exts.P9, P10 and P12 circulars in this regard;
and seek that they be quashed, since they run

¶32

[WP(C) Nos.11200/2023, 18888/2023]

¶33

¶34

contra to the contractual covenance between the
parties.

¶35

3.The learned Government Pleader– Sri.Rajeev
Jyothish George - appearing for respondents 1 to
3, in response to the afore submissions of the
petitioner, as made by their learned counsel –
Sri.Renjith B.Marar, argued that fixing of rent
and renewal of lease Agreements are within the
discretion of the “Market” and the 4th respondent
is the competent Authority. He, however, submitted
that he does not have instructions from the 4th
respondent, on what basis he had issued the
impugned circulars; and added that if this Court
is so inclined, his clients will not stand in the
way of directions being issued to the said
Authority to reconsider the matter in terms of
law, adverting to the contractual terms between
the parties. He concluded saying that, in any

¶36

[WP(C) Nos.11200/2023, 18888/2023]

¶37

¶38

event, the Secretary will have to act as per the
decision of the Committee of the Market; and hence
that they will be directed to take a decision in
terms of law.

¶39

4.The files reveal that even though service
of summons to the 4th respondent has been
completed, he has failed to appear in person or
to be represented through counsel.

¶40

5.There can be little doubt that, in

¶41

matters relating to lease Agreements and the
terms under it, the competence of this Court to
intervene or to make affirmative declarations, is
extremely limited. It is for the competent
Authorities, under the contractual schemes, to
take necessary decisions and enforce them.

¶42

6.In the case at hand, the learned
Government Pleader, appearing for respondents 1
to 3, concedes that the competent Authority to

¶43

[WP(C) Nos.11200/2023, 18888/2023]

¶44

¶45

take a decision in this regard is the Committee
of the “Market”, which will have to be then
enforced by the 4th respondent – Secretary.
However, the circulars impugned before this Court
namely, Exts.P9, P10 and P12, appear to have been
issued by the Secretary, though this Court is not
aware if they were done under the instructions of
the Committee.

¶46

7.Be that as it may, when the petitioner
say that they are willing to abide by the
conditions of the contract, including for its
renewal and the enhancement of rent, I am certain
that Committee of the Market should hear them and
take a final decision, dehors the impugned
circulars and the demands issued by the 4th
respondent.

¶47

Resultantly, this writ petition is allowed
and Ext.P14 is set aside; with a consequential

¶48

[WP(C) Nos.11200/2023, 18888/2023]

¶49

¶50

direction to the Committee of the Market to hear
the petitioner and take a decision on their plea
hinged on the contractual terms between its
members and the “Market”; thus culminating in an
appropriate order and necessary action, as
expeditiously as is possible, but not later than
three months from the date of receipt of a copy
of this judgment.

¶51

Needless to say, until such time as the afore
is done and the resultant order communicated to
the petitioners or to its members, status quo
with respect to the shops, as available today,
shall be maintained.

¶52

 Sd/-

¶53

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE

¶54

SAS

¶55

[WP(C) Nos.11200/2023, 18888/2023]

¶56

¶57

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 18888/2023

¶58

PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1A TRUE COPY OF THE LICENSE DEED DATED
01.10.2022 BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND THE 4TH
RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P2A TRUE COPY OF THE CONSENT DEED DATED
01.10.2022, EXECUTED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT IN
FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER.
Exhibit P3A TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED
29.03.2023 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN
W.P.(C) NO.11200 OF 2023.
Exhibit P4A TRUE COPY OF THE RECOVERY NOTICE DATED
10.05.2023 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE
PETITIONER
Exhibit P5A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 13.05.2023
FILED BY THE PETITIONER AGAINST THE 4TH
RESPONDENT BEFORE THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
PETTAH POLICE STATION.
Exhibit P6A TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT RECEIPT OF
PETITION DATED 14.05.2023 NUMBERED AS PETITION
NO.: 49316/2023 RECEIVED BY THE PETITIONER
FROM PETTAH POLICE STATION.
Exhibit P7A TRUE COPY OF THE PAYMENT RECEIPT BEARING UPI
TRANSACTION ID 313447374586 DATED 14.05.2023
Exhibit P8A TRUE COPY OF THE PAYMENT RECEIPT BEARING UPI
TRANSACTION ID 313447497479 DATED 14.05.2023

¶59

[WP(C) Nos.11200/2023, 18888/2023]

¶60

¶61

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 11200/2023

¶62

`PETITIONER EXHIBITS` `Exhibit P1`	`A TRUE` `DATED 1` `KERALA`	`COPY OF THE` `7.04.1999 I`	`G.O. (MS.) NO. 117/99/AD.` `SSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF`
`Exhibit P2`	`A TRUE` `MARKET` `MARKET,`	`COPY OF THE` `AUTHORITY O` `ANAYARA, T`	`BYE-LAWS ADOPTED BY THE` `F THE AGRICULTURAL WHOLESALE` `HIRUVANANTHAPURAM`
`Exhibit P3`	`A TRUE` `BETWEEN` `AND THE`	`COPY OF AN` `A MEMBER O` `4 TH RESPO`	`AGREEMENT DATED 05.11.2022` `F THE PETITIONER ASSOCIATION` `NDENT`
`Exhibit P4`	`A TRUE` `AS PER`	`COPY OF THE` `THE TERMS O`	`RENT CALCULATION FROM 2003,` `F EXT.P3`
`Exhibit P5`	`A TRUE` `CONDUCT`	`COPY OF THE` `ED ON 22.01`	`MINUTES OF THE MEETING` `.2016`
`Exhibit P6`	`A TRUE` `CONDUCT`	`COPY OF THE` `ED ON 16.10`	`MINUTES OF THE MEETING` `.2020`
`Exhibit P7`	`A TRUE` `AS PER`	`COPY OF THE` `THE MODIFIC`	`RENT CALCULATION FROM 2003,` `ATIONS VIDE EXTS. P5 AND P6`
`Exhibit P8`	`A TRUE` `CONDUCT`	`COPY OF THE` `ED ON 31.05`	`MINUTES OF THE MEETING` `.2022`
`Exhibit P9`	`A TRUE` `ISSUED`	`COPY OF THE` `BY THE 4 TH`	`CIRCULAR DATED 08.02.2023` `RESPONDENT`
`Exhibit P10`	`A TRUE` `ISSUED`	`COPY OF THE` `BY THE 4 TH`	`CIRCULAR DATED 15.02.2023` `RESPONDENT`
`Exhibit P11`	`TRUE CO` `25.02.2`	`PIES OF THE` `023`	`REPRESENTATIONS DATED`
`Exhibit P12`	`A TRUE` `ISSUED`	`COPY OF THE` `BY THE 4 TH`	`CIRCULAR DATED 01.03.2023` `RESPONDENT`
`Exhibit P13`	`A TRUE` `10.03.2` `COMMITT`	`COPY OF THE` `023 PLACED` `EE BY THE P`	`REPRESENTATION DATED` `BEFORE THE EXECUTIVE` `ETITIONER ASSOCIATION`
`Exhibit P14`	`A TRUE` `15.03.2` `THE MEM`	`COPY OF THE` `023 ISSUED` `BERS OF THE`	`URGENT NOTICES DATED` `BY THE 4 TH RESPONDENT TO` `PETITIONER ASSOCIATION`

Market Shop Owners Welfare Association, v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Market Shop Owners Welfare Association, 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jessy Biju Vs Union of India

Rosily George Vs the District Collector

C.Girishadas Vs the Director, Animal Husbandry Dept

Vijaya Vs Hdfc Bank Ltd.

Rajeev K Vs the District Collector

Binil M.V Vs M/S. Tata Motors Finance Ltd.