ISMAIL, S/O BAPPUTTY Vs. PATTAMBI MUNICIPALITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the Senior Counsel for the appellants, learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 3 and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the second respondent.

(2.) This appeal is filed by the petitioners in W.P.(C) 36834/17. The said writ petition was heard along with W.P.(C) 37414/17 and was dismissed by judgment dated 18th December 2017. It is this judgment, which is challenged in this appeal.

(3.) The appellants were the occupants of the old market established by the Pattambi Municipality. The market building was demolished and a new building was constructed. A number of stalls in the new buildings were earmarked for rehabilitation of traders like the appellants who were occupying rooms in the earlier market. Accordingly, the Municipality passed Ext.P8 resolution resolving that the rent payable for the rooms in the new premises shall be the lowest quoted rate in the auction. But when the rooms were allotted, the Municipality insisted that the appellants should pay the rent at the lowest quoted rates in the auction for the respective category of trade in the ground floor. In other words, a fish vendor should pay, the lowest quoted rent for the room earmarked for fish vending. According to the appellants, this decision of the Municipality is against Ext.P8 and it is on that basis, the writ petition was filed, which came to be dismissed by the impugned judgment. According to the learned Senior Counsel, the demand for rent now made by the Municipality is against Ext.P8 itself and, therefore, the learned Single Judge was not justified in rejecting the challenge against the levy of rent.