SURESH P.A. Vs. KOTTAYAM MUNICIPALITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners have common grievances for redressal against the common respondent namely the Kottayam Municipality. Therefore, these writ petitions are taken up for joint consideration and disposal.

(2.) THE petitioners were conducting different businesses in the stalls allotted to them in the old vegetable market belonging to the first respondent municipality in the heart of the Kottayam town. The old vegetable market abuts the Masjid Road and Challiyil Road linking the K.K. Road and M.C.Road. While they were thus conducting business the first respondent introduced a project for establishment of a new vegetable market in the year 2010. Accordingly, a new eco -friendly vegetable market was constructed at Kodimatha in Kottayam. The stalls occupied by the petitioners in the old market were in a ramshackle and therefore, soon after the construction of the new market at Kodimatha, under the rehabilitation package, the petitioners and similarly situated business men who were conducting business in the old market were allotted business stalls 1 to 76 in the new market. After executing agreements with the first respondent municipality, the petitioners and the others similarly situated occupied their business stalls in the new vegetable market. Earlier, while they were occupying the business stalls in the old market, notices were issued to the petitioners under section 215 of the Kerala Municipality Act informing them of their arrears towards rent and cautioning them of eviction without any further notice in case of their failure to remit the rent amount including the arrears and the service tax and also the penal interest. In fact, it was thereafter that the petitioners and others shifted business to the new vegetable market at Kodimatha. Later, the petitioners were issued with notices demanding different amounts ranging from Rs.75,000 to Rs.2,25,000 as security amount and they were also required to give the advance license fee mentioned in the notice issued to them. It is the contention of the petitioners that they were given instalment facility for remitting the security deposit. In January 2014, notices were again issued to the petitioners requiring them to pay the arrears of rent and the security deposit. The contention of the petitioners is that certain other conditions which were agreed upon by the first respondent - municipality before the execution of the agreement and shifting the business to the new vegetable market were not complied with by the respondents. The bypass road to the new vegetable market and bus route facility to the new market linking to Kodimatha and M.C Road are not yet provided. A bus terminal at Kodimatha passing through the new vegetable market is also not yet established. The petitioners have various other grievances regarding such aspects. At the same time, there is no serious dispute with respect to the fact that they have committed default in payment of rent and that is yet to be cleared and also that they are yet to pay the security deposit amount fully. Despite such circumstances, the petitioners approached this Court by filing the captioned writ petitions challenging the notices issued to them by the municipality demanding payment of rental arrears, security deposit with penal interest besides seeking a declaration that they are entitled to continue to occupy the business stall occupied by them under the rehabilitation package reserved for them and further instalment facility for paying the security deposit under the project of new market.