UMARUL FAROOK Vs. SECRETARY, MUKKKAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The controversy in this writ petition evolve around the allotment of room No.A7 in a shopping complex owned and constructed by the Mukkom Grama Panchayath, which is now the Mukkom Municipality.

(2.) The essential facts necessary for my consideration is that this room was part of an auction notification issued by the Municipality and that it was allotted through such process to the petitioner. The petitioner was, thereafter, issued Ext.P1 allotment letter, dated 05.09.2011, permitting him to use this shop as a cold storage for frozen chicken, subject to the supervision of the Health Department.

(3.) However, it appears that the third respondent herein made a complaint before the Panchayath pointing out that as per Ext.P6 Bye Laws, governing the grant of lease of the various shop rooms in the shopping complex, as also the auction notification, sale of fish and meat will be permitted only in room Nos.A29 to A34. The third respondent's accusation was that the petitioner has been allotted room No.A7 in violation of this specific prescriptions in the Bye Laws and auction notification and he requested the Panchayath to cancel the allotment of the said room to the petitioner through Ext.P1. This persuaded the Panchayath to adopt Ext.P5 resolution canceling the allotment, which constrained the petitioner to approach the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institution, Thiruvananthapuram by filing appeal No.634/2012. The learned Tribunal, after an analysis of the facts involved, held against the petitioner, finding that the room that has been allotted to him through Ext.P1 could not have been so allotted under Ext.P6 Bye Laws and the auction notification.