MERCHANT NAVY CLUB Vs. KERALA MARITIME BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. In 1996, three sheds were given on lease to the petitioner as per Ext. P6 lease deed. The ownership of the shed vests with the second respondent and the property vests with the first respondent. The petitioner renovated the sheds in 1997. By Ext. P12 lease deed, the lease was renewed in 2015. In 2016, the sheds were again renovated using the petitioner's funds. Pursuant to Ext. P18 letter issued by the second respondent, the petitioner remitted Rs.75,933.00 towards revised license fees. While so, the petitioner received Ext. P23 order from the Kozhikode Corporation to demolish the renovated building. Since the building is owned by the second respondent, he submitted an application for regularisation of the construction. In the meantime, on 31/3/2023, the lease was again renewed by Ext. P30 lease deed. To the petitioner's shock, the CEO of the first respondent has issued Ext. P32 notice to the second respondent, directing him to issue an eviction notice to the petitioner. The allegations raised in Ext. P32 are without any basis. The second respondent has clarified that the land and building were leased to the petitioner, and the building was renovated after getting approval from the Port Department, Government of Kerala. On 15/1/2025, the petitioner was served with Ext. P40 show cause notice by the first respondent under Sec. 4 of the Kerala Public Buildings (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act ('Act', for short), 1968, directing the petitioner to show cause why they should not be evicted from the premises. The petitioner had submitted Ext. P41 reply, inter alia, contending that the Estate Officer is incompetent to initiate the proceeding. While so, without considering the contentions in Ext. P41 reply or conducting any hearing, the first respondent has passed Ext. P42 order. Ext. P42 order is illegal and arbitrary. Hence, the writ petition.

(2.) Heard; the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 and the learned Government Pleader.

(3.) The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner reiterated the contentions raised in the writ petition. He also argued that the Estate Officer has no authority to issue a show cause notice invoking the provisions of the Act because the property belongs to the Government of Kerala. Moreover, as per the various enactments, it is obligatory on the part of the state to provide facilities to seafarers. The entire procedure leading to Ext. P42 is tainted with malafides. Therefore, Ext. P42 may be quashed.