RAKHEEB Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) As per the case projected in this Writ Petition (Civil), it is stated that the petitioners are conducting food courts at Kamalakadavu on the basis of Ext.P-1 licence agreement executed between the 1st respondentDistrict Collector, Ernakulam and petitioners 1 & 2. The petitioners would state that they got their shops under the rehabilitation package meant for street vendors and based on the agreement entered into with the 1st respondent, they are paying the rent fixed by the 1st respondent regularly. That during rainy season, the petitioners are unable to do business and hence an application was made by the petitioners requesting the 1st respondent to construct removable canopy in the open space. It is alleged by the petitioners that due to the influence of the large scale hotels, the officials concerned are attempting to remove the canopy. It is asserted by the petitioners that they are not causing or creating nuisance to anybody and if the canopy is removed, it will affect the business and livelihood of the petitioners. It is in the light of these aspects, that the present Writ Petition has been filed seeking the following prayers:

(2.) Heard Sri.T.B.Mini, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri.K.V.Sohan, learned State Attorney, instructed by Sri.K.B.Soni, learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

(3.) This Court while admitting this Writ Petition on 9.2018 had issued an interim order directing the 1st respondent not to remove the canopy of the food court of the petitioners, etc., and the said interim order has been extended on 2.4.2018 for a period of three months and later it was also extended until further orders as per order dated 11.7.2018. Now, it is submitted by Sri.K.V.Sohan, learned State Attorney, on the basis of instructions of the 1st respondent-District Collector that petitioners 1 to 5 are doing restaurant business and food courts opposite to the Delta Study Centre and they executed agreement and remitted security deposit of Rs. 20,000/- each and that they have to pay monthly amount of Rs. 3,000/- per month, etc. That the petitioners had applied before the 1st respondent-District Collector/Secretary of the Cochin Heritage Zone Conservation Society for allowing canopy in the open space allotted to them and that the Cochin Heritage Zone Conservation Society in its meeting held on 21.4.2010 was decided to allot additional space in front of food courts for serving foods without obstruction of movement in the walkway and thereafter they were permitted to construct canopy model roof. It is further stated that the allegation that the 1st respondent is trying to demolish the installed canopy is not true and that the petitioners are occupying the entire area including the walkway by causing hindrance to pedestrians, by exhibiting the live sea foods and put up serving tables in the entire area and this action on the part of the petitioners is against the permission granted to them and they are permissible licensees and not street vendors. That very often, food courts used to put up the tables and chairs in the walkway also and exhibiting the sea foods in the walkway and that it amounts to mis-utilisation of the permission granted to them. It is further stated that the petitioners may be permitted to continue the benefit contemplated by the Cochin Heritage Zone Conservation Society as per their committee decision held on 21.4.2010, i.e., only to serve foods in the allotted place and having a walkway to the pedestrians, etc.