VIMAL ALIAS THOMAS Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners were aggrieved with the notices issued similar to Ext.P2 as seen from W.P.(C) No.11151 of 2016. The petitioners contend that they were paying nominal licence fees, which stood enhanced to almost four times as is seen from Ext.P2; on an unilateral revision made on account of the Panchayath being constituted as a Municipality.

(2.) THE contention of the petitioners was that the petitioners had been continuing for long in the shopping complex, when the Municipality was earlier a Panchayath. The petitioners were also grant continued lease in the successive and connected cases years on nominal annual enhanced licence fees of 5%. The petitioners have now been threatened with an arbitrary enhancement as is indicated at Ext.P2 and other similar orders, which allegedly is under Sec. 4(5) of the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994 (for brevity 'the Act of 1994). The petitioners contend that no such power can be derived by the Municipality from Sec. 4(5) of the Act of 1994.

(3.) THE learned Counsel for the petitioners would point out that Sec.