VALPARAMBIL KABEER Vs. PONMUNDUM GRAMA PANCHAYAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 to 3.

(2.) PETITIONER states that he was conducting a business in partnership with one Ismayil, who was the tenant in a building owned by the respondent Panchayat. According to the petitioner, Ismayil fell ill in 2006 and since then he has been continuing the business. He also contends that the trade licence was renewed in his name and that he made deposit for the room also on his own. This arrangement continued till 2009. In 2009, Panchayat wanted to reconstruct the shopping complex and 17 persons including the petitioner were given temporary alternate accommodation. It is also his case that the Panchayat had promised to given them rooms in the new building.

(3.) IN spite of it room was not allotted to him. He thereupon filed a contempt petition against the Panchayat which was closed by this court on the ground that Ext.P10 judgment did not contain any directions for allotment of the room. It was thereafter that he filed the writ petition(c).No.26821/2011 mainly praying for a direction to the Panchayat to allot a room in the shopping complex.