MATHEW M S Vs. DISTRICT TOURIST PROMOTION COUNCIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER approached this Court challenging Ext.P3, a notice issued by the 1st respondent requiring the petitioner to vacate from the premises in respect of which Ext.R1 (a) licence has been granted to him. It is stated that a building with eight rooms was given to the petitioner on license, a copy of which is produced as Ext.R1 (a). This licence was for a period of two years and the period has expired on 18.6.2009. In view of the expiry of the period, petitioner was issued notice dated 15.6.2009 asking him to vacate from the premises. At that stage, petitioner applied to the 1st respondent requesting to extend the period of licence.

(2.) THE counter affidavit shows that a meeting of the 1st respondent considered this request of the petitioner and it was decided not to extend the licence and to invite fresh tender/auction. In pursuance to the above, Ext.P3 notice dated 1.1.2010 was issued calling upon the petitioner to vacate from the premises. It is in these circumstances, this writ petition is filed and on the strength of an interim order obtained from this Court, petitioner is continuing occupation of the premises.

(3.) BE that as it may, the fact remains that the petitioner has invested considerable amount and is now operating the resort for tourism purposes. Therefore, immediate eviction of the petitioner, is of no benefit to the respondents also. Therefore, I feel that the interest of the respondents will not be prejudiced if the petitioner is permitted to continue the occupation of the premises till a fresh license is granted to anybody by conducting fresh auction/tender. However, taking note of the submission made by the learned Government Pleader that amounts are due from the petitioner, it is clarified that continued occupation can only be allowed if the petitioner clears the entire arrears that are due.