MATHAI SYRIAC Vs. KSRTC

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two appeals arise out two different writ petitions, but raise the same question. In W A 308 of 1994 (which arises out of OP 1867 of 1994), there is a single appellant and in WA 313 of 1994 (which arises out of OP 2136 of 1994), there are two appellants.

(2.) THE dispute is between the appellants (writ petitioners) and the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation (KSRTC). The appellant in WA 308 of 1994 is a licensee of Stall No. 1 of the KSRTC buildings, Thiruvalla from 1972 onwards and the licence on each occasion was for three years. He has been conducting a medical shop in that Stall. The last renewal was from 1-12-1990 to 30-11-1993, Ext. P1. Before the expiry of the licence, the District Transport Officer, Thiruvalla served a notice dated 20-10-1993 where in it was stated that the KSRTC had resolved to fix the period of licence of the Stalls as one year from the first day of April every April every year and that in view of the same, it was proposed to extend the period of licence of the appellant upto 31-3-1994 subject to the existing terms and conditions. The said notice is Ext. P2. Earlier, before the above said extension, there was a proposal to have the appellant evicted by notice dated 11-10-1993, Ext. P3 and the appellant had submitted a representation on 15-10-1993, Ext. P4. The grievance of the appellant was that without disposing of Ext. P4 representation, the KSRTC had issued a tender notification, Ext. P5 on 20-1-1994 inviting tenders for grant of the licence for conduct of the business in these Stalls for the period from 1-4-1994 to 31-3-1995. The enders were to reach by 10-2-1994. Questioning the above said notice the present writ petition was filed and the same having been dismissed, the writ appeal is preferred.

(3.) THE question, therefore, is whether when the appellants were continuing in the KSRTC Stalls as licencees from 1969 or 1972 onwards, as the case may be, can the KSRTC row act by issuing notification calling for tenders wherein the licence to occupy these shops is going to be settled by way of tenders. Admittedly, appellants were running the Stalls under periodical licence of three years each and each time the rent was increased. The contention of the appellants' counsel is that inasmuch as appellants have been continuing for a long period, there is a legitimate expectation that they will be continued further. In any event, the action to call for tenders in regard to the right to conduct the business in these Stalls is only intended to dislodge the existing licencees and, therefore, it is arbitrary.