A.K.KAMRUDEEN Vs. THE STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners are the licensees in a shopping complex of the Pavaratty Grama Panchayat, the 2nd respondent herein, who are aggrieved with notices issued, identical to that produced at Ext.P1, to all the petitioners, for cancellation of their licenses and eviction from the shopping complex.

(2.) Admittedly, the licenses issued to the petitioners expired on 31.03.2016 and when renewal was sought, the Panchayat had issued Ext.P1 and similar notices since, the Panchayat had decided to demolish the existing building and construct a new building in the premises, for the purpose of housing the Panchayat office. At present the Panchayat office is housed along with the licensed shop rooms, in which commercial activities were carried on.

(3.) The petitioners on the basis of Ext.P4 report by an alleged expert contends that there is absolutely no necessity for the building to be demolished as of now. It is also stated in Ext.P4 that tested against the current cost of construction, renovating the existing building would be a more feasible option. At the out set, it is to be stated that Ext.P4 does not have any sanctity insofar as the consideration of the writ petition is concerned. The report of the so called expert,a private agency, is un -solicited; on which no credence can be placed since it is obtained behind the back of the owner of the building; the Panchayath. Nor is the credentials of the expert placed before this Court, so as to establish the veracity of the conclusions made in the said report. This Court hence would not place any reliance on Ext.P4 report.