P.KRISHNAMOORTHY Vs. PALAKKAD MUNCIPALITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is a person suffering from 65% disability. During 1992, as instructed by the then Chief Minister of the State, having regard to the disability of the petitioner, the Palakkad Municipality had permitted the petitioner to erect a booth for sale of prepared tea in the then Municipal Bus Stand to enable the petitioner to eke out a living. Accordingly, the petitioner has erected the booth and he was conducting the business therein since 1992. In the year 2018, the Municipal Bus Stand was shifted to a new place. Consequently, the petitioner and other similarly placed vendors had to stop the businesses carried on by them at the old venue of the Bus Stand. The case of the petitioner is that though the persons who were conducting businesses in the old Bus Stand premises were accommodated in the premises of the new Bus Stand, the petitioner was not accommodated. The petitioner, therefore, preferred Ext.P8 representation before the respondent seeking permission to erect a booth in the premises of the new Bus Stand. Ext.P8 representation was not considered by the respondent. The petitioner, therefore, approached this Court in W.P.(C) No.33347 of 2018 and the said writ petition was disposed of directing the respondent to take a decision on Ext.P8 representation. Ext.P2 is the judgment rendered by this Court in the said writ petition. Pursuant to Ext.P2 judgment, the respondent considered and rejected the request made by the petitioner without disclosing any reason. Ext.P4 is the decision taken by the respondent in this regard. Ext.P4 decision was challenged by the petitioner before this Court in W.P.(C) No.4720 of 2020. The said writ petition was disposed of in terms of Ext.P10 judgment, directing the respondent to reconsider the matter having regard to the fact that the petitioner is a person suffering from 65% of disability and also that the petitioner was accommodated in the old Bus Stand premises as directed by the then Chief Minister of the State. Pursuant to Ext.P10 judgment, though the petitioner was afforded an opportunity of hearing, his request was turned down again by the respondent. Ext.P1 is the communication issued to the petitioner in this regard. It is stated in Ext.P1 communication that the request of the petitioner cannot be considered since he had let out the booth permitted to be erected by him in the premises of the old Bus Stand. The decision communicated to the petitioner in terms of Ext.P1 is under challenge in the writ petition.

(2.) A statement has been filed on behalf of the respondent reiterating the stand taken by them in Ext.P1 communication.

(3.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent.