ISMAIL AND OTHERS Vs. PATTAMBI MUNICIPALITY AND ANOTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since the issue involved in both these writ petitions is the same they are taken up for consideration together and disposed by this common judgment.

(2.) The petitioners in both these writ petitions are persons, who were doing business in the old market that was conducted by the Pattambi Municipality. It is stated that they, as also their predecessors in interest, were carrying on the business in the space allotted by the then Panchayath in the locality. In the writ petition, they are aggrieved by the auction conducted by the Municipality for allocation of stalls in the new building that was constructed by the respondent Municipality for the purposes of housing the market, which was earlier in another location and in another building. Ext.P8 notice dated 30.08.2017 is the decision of the respondent Municipality taken in connection with the auctioning of the stalls in the new building. A perusal of the said decision of the Municipality would indicate that the respondent Municipality identified various rooms in the ground floor of the new building, for letting out for the purposes of different businesses such as trade in fish, dried fish, mutton and beef and allocated specific rooms in the ground floor for each of the said trades. When it came to rehabilitation of the persons, such as the petitioners in these writ petitions, who were conducting a like business in the old market place, Ext.P8 decision was to the effect that the petitioners would be allotted specific rooms for conducting their trade, on condition that, the rent fixed for the petitioners would be the lowest rate quoted, in the tenders received pursuant to the auction notice, for the rooms allotted to general category of persons for the relevant trade. It would appear that, as part of the tender conditions, the petitioners had also to pay an advance amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- in respect of the rooms allotted to them, and thereafter, they were to execute an agreement with the respondent Municipality, and pay the rent that was fixed in respect of the rooms allotted to them. It is not in dispute in these writ petitions that the petitioners paid the advance amount due to the respondent Municipality. The issue raised in these writ petitions is only with regard to the monthly rental amounts that have to be paid by the petitioners to the respondent Municipality in respect of the rooms allotted to them. The petitioners would contend, placing reliance on Ext.P8 decision of the respondent Municipality, that they were entitled to a reduced rental amount, equivalent to the lowest of the amounts offered by the various bidders in the auction conducted by the respondent Municipality. The contention, in other words, is that the respondent Municipality would have to take the lowest tender amount quoted by any of those persons, who responded to the auction notice in respect of the stalls that were not earmarked for any particular category of persons, and adopt the said lowest rates as the rental amount to be paid by the petitioners herein. It would appear that, the respondent Municipality, contrary to the expectations of the petitioners, adopted the lowest rate quoted by tenderers in each category, such as stalls for trade of fish, dried fish, mutton and beef, and adopted the lowest rate quoted in that particular category, as the rate to be paid by the petitioners, who were engaged in a similar trade. The petitioners have impugned the said action of the respondents in these writ petitions.

(3.) At the time of admission of these writ petitions, this Court had by an interim order in W.P(C).No.37414 of 2017 directed the respondents to maintain the status quo as on the date of the interim order. The said interim order has been extended from time to time and continues to be in force even today. As a result of the interim order passed by this Court, the respondent Municipality has refrained from collecting the higher amounts of rent demanded by them from the petitioners, and has permitted the petitioners to pay rent at the rate of Rs. 9,600/- per month, which was the lowest of the tender rates quoted in the auction.