LAWS(KER)-2018-5-59

PADINJARATHARA GRAMA PANCHAYAT Vs. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE , KALPETTA

Decided On May 29, 2018
Padinjarathara Grama Panchayat Appellant
V/S
Superintendent Of Police , Kalpetta Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We have heard Sri.K.Mohanakannan, learned counsel for the petitioner Panchayat, Sri.Manoj Ramaswamy, learned counsel for respondents 3, 8, 18, 19, 21 and 22 and Sri.M.K.Dileep Kumar, learned counsel appearing for respondents 4 to 7, 9, 10, 13 & 14. Respondents 11, 12, 15 to 17 and 20 did not appear, despite service of notice.

(2.) Essentially what is to be considered is whether the party respondents, licensees under the Panchayath, have the right to exercise their remedies as available under the Kerala Public Buildings (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants Act) , 1968 ('Eviction Act' for short) in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case when their right to continue in the licensed premises was already considered by this Court and negatived. Under the Eviction Act, on notices for eviction from public premises being issued by the Estate Officer, the licensees have the right to file objections which have to be considered by the authority who issued such notices. An order passed by the said authority considering the objections, would also be subjected to appeal as provided under the Eviction Act; which lies to the District Collector. Here we have to notice that some of the party respondents had been before this Court asserting their right to continue in occupation of licensed premises, which were sought to be auctioned by the petitioner-Panchayat. The party respondents in the earlier round challenged the auction proceedings initiated by the Panchayath.

(3.) The facts in its chronological order are as follows:- The term of license of respondents 3 to 22 expired on 31.2017. They had been continuing for long on nominal increase of rent every year. License agreements used to be executed for a period of one year. The local authority feeling the need for augmentation of revenue decided to auction the premises. A notice requiring vacation of premises was issued on 18.11.2016, long prior to the expiry of licenses, in preparation of the auction scheduled.