GEORGE JOSEPH Vs. KANJIKUZHY GRAMAPANCHAYAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER was a licensee of room No.2 of Keerithodu shopping complex belonging to the first respondent Panchayat. The licence was for the period 2011-12. Despite notice dated 16.3.2012 calling upon the petitioner to intimate whether he intends to apply for renewal of the licence, petitioner did not respond to the notice. However, he continued to occupy the room. In such circumstances, Panchayat issued notice dated 10.4.2012 calling upon the petitioner to surrender the keys of the room on or before 23.4.2012. Ext.P4 shows that this notice was served on the petitioner's wife. In spite of having received both these notices, neither did the petitioner apply for renewal of the licence nor did he surrender vacant possession of the room. Therefore, the petitioner was evicted from the room on 17.5.2012. It is challenging this eviction, that this writ petition is filed.

(2.) THE contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that it was without giving notice as contemplated under Rule 5(1) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj (Removal of Encroachment and Imposition and Recovery of Penalty for unauthorized Occupation) Rules, 1996, that the petitioner was evicted from the room in question. I am unable to agree. Ext.P4 shows that notice dated 10.4.2012 was served on the petitioner's wife requiring the petitioner to surrender the keys of the room on or before 23.4.2012. This notice must have contained the consequences and despite the fact that this notice is a relevant document, petitioner has not chosen to produce the same in this writ petition. In such circumstances, this Court will be justed in inferring that this notice is one which satisfies the requirements of Rule 5(1) of the Rules.