K.K.KRISHNAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WP (C) No. 5556/2014 is filed seeking direction against respondents 3 to 7 therein to permit the petitioner to conduct the Toddy Shops in the buildings owned by the 6th respondent, based on Ext.P1 to P4. As per Ext.P1 the 4th respondent had informed the petitioner about the confirmation granted by the 2nd respondent, with respect to the auction conducted for assignment of the right to vend toddy in T.S. Nos.7,6,10,12,34 of Group 3 of Mamala Range, for the period from 10.02.2014 to 31.03.2014. The petitioner was requested to execute the agreement under the relevant Rules and also to submit applications for establishment of the shops in question. It is evident from Ext.P1 that the right was assigned for an amount of Rs.17,110/ -.

(2.) CASE of the petitioner is that, on the basis of Ext.P1 he had paid a sum of Rs.2,07,600/ - towards advance salary to the employees, as evident from Ext.P2 Treasury Receipt and also remitted a sum of Rs.17,500/ - towards rental, as evident from Ext.P3 receipt. The petitioner had also remitted a sum of Rs.85,000/ - towards contributions payable to the Toddy Workers Welfare Fund. According to the petitioner he had invested a total amount of Rs.3,50,000/ - for conduct of the Toddy Shops based on Ext.P1 confirmation of sale. It is stated that the Toddy Shops were functioning in the buildings owned by the 6th respondent and the petitioner cannot change the buildings, but can only conduct the Toddy Shops in the very same buildings. The respondents 6 and 7 ought to have granted/handed over the existing buildings to make it convenient to the petitioner to conduct the Toddy Shops. But they refused to permit the petitioner to conduct the Toddy Shops in the said buildings. Therefore the petitioner had submitted Ext.P4 and P5 representations before respondents 3 and 6. Since no action was taken on those representations, this writ petition is filed.

(3.) IN the case at hand, the petitioner had raised complaint to the District Collector about non -granting of the buildings owned by the 6th respondent, for conduct of the toddy shops. Whether the respondents 6 and 7 are at an obligation to grant the buildings to the petitioner for conduct of Toddy Shops, is a matter which cannot be looked into within the authority or competence of the District Collector or the Excise authorities. Making available buildings suitable for establishment of the Toddy Shops is the look out of the petitioner, who had auctioned the right. Neither the District Collector nor the Excise authorities can compel the respondents 6 and 7 to hand over the buildings to the petitioner. That being the position, the relief sought for in WP(C) No.5556/2014 to the extent of directing respondents 3 to 5 to make facilities to the petitioner for conduct of the Toddy Shops in the buildings owned by respondents 6 and 7, cannot be granted. This court in exercise of power vested under Article 226 cannot also issue any direction to respondents 6 and 7 in this regard.