JALEEL HAMZA Vs. THE ETTUMANOOR MUNICIPALITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners in both the above writ petitions challenge the public auction of certain stalls in the fish market; which auction has been notified as per Notification No.A2.3673/16 dated 25.05.2016, produced as Ext.R1 in WP(C) No.10403 of 2016. The contention of the petitioners are slightly different and that has to be noticed first.

(2.) WP(C) No.10289 of 2016 is filed by seven persons, who claim to be included amongst the 12 fish vendors, who were granted a preferential allotment, without auction, as per Ext.P1, at the inception of the new market and continued for the year 2014 -2015 by virtue of Ext.P4. Ext.P1 is the bye -law of the Panchayat with respect to the auctioning of the stalls in the newly established fish market, owned by the Panchayat. Clause 20 of Ext.P1 indicates that 12 stalls, with slight variations, were set apart for the 12 fish vendors, whose licence fee was to be,the average of the bid amount received in the auction of the other stalls in the very same fish market. There were also renewals effected, in the subsequent years, on the basis of nominal enhancement of license fee. While the petitioners were so continued,the Panchayat was converted into a Municipality, in the year 2015.

(3.) The petitioners in WP(C) No.10403 of 2016, auctioned the stalls in the year 2014 - 2015 and claim continuance in the present year also. The petitioners also raise a ground of discrimination, in so far as the other stalls in the fish market and the rooms in a shopping complex having been granted renewal to the existing licensees by nominal enhancement of license fee, for the year 2016 -2017. The fish vendors, who are the petitioners in WP(C) No.10289 of 2016, in addition to the ground of discrimination also claim that they are entitled to continued on preferential treatment as decided in Ext. P1 bye -laws.