Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALAAT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE THE AG.CHIEF JUSTICE MR.ASHOK BHUSHAN & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE FRIDAY,THE12H DAY OF DECEMBER201421ST AGRAHAYANA, 1936 WA.No. 1342 of 2014 () IN WP(C).4503/2014 ------------------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGMENT
IN WP(C) 4503/2014 DATED0107-2014 APPELLANT(S)/PETITIONERS: ------------------------------------------------ 1. T.K. SAJEEV AGED49YEARS S/O. KOCHUKUNJU, THAYYAPARAMBIL, THAZHATHANGADI P.O.,KOTTAYAM.
2. P.G.RAJAPPAN AGED59YEARS S/O. ITTIRA GOPALAN, PANAYAMPARAMBIL CHANNANIKKAD P.O., CHUZHIYEKKAD, KOTTAYAM3 S.PONNACHAN AGED45YEARS S/O. SOURI, PUTHENPARAMBIL, VILLOONNI P.O. ARPOOKKARA, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.K.MURALEEDHARAN RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS: ---------------------------------------------------- 1. KOTTAYAM MUNCIPALITY REPRESENTED BY THE MUNICIPAL SECRETARY OFFICE OF THE KOTTAYAM MUNICIPALITY, KOTTAYAM P.O. KOTTAYAM-686 001.
2. THE REVENUE OFFICER, KOTTAYAM MUNICIPALITY OFFICE OF THE KOTTAYAM MUNICIPALITY, KOTTAYAM P.O. KOTTAYAM-686 001. R1 BYADV.SRI.PHILIP J.VETTICKATTU THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON1212-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ASHOK BHUSHAN, Ag.CJ & A.M.SHAFFIQUE, J.
----------------------------------------------------------------------- W.A. No. 1342 of 2014 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 12th day of December, 2014
JUDGMENT
Shaffique, J The writ petitioners are the appellants. They challenged the judgment dated 1.7.2014 in WP(C) No.4503 of 2014.
2. The writ petition came to be filed by the petitioners when steps were taken by the Municipality to recover the arrears of security deposit and rent from the petitioners. The facts involved in the writ petition would disclose that the writ petitioners were originally having business in the old vegetable market which abuts the Masjid Road and Challiyil Road linking the K.K. Road. On account of certain factual situation, the market happened to be shifted by the Municipality and presently it is situated at Kodimatha, Kottayam. The grievance of the petitioner is that though they have all shifted, the Municipality has not complied with the promise that was offered to them at the time of shifting, especially the decision taken by the Municipality in the meeting held on 7.3.2013, which was convened at the instance of the Municipality and represented by merchants and other persons. WA.1342/14. 2 Ext.P5 is the said decision. The petitioners submitted that though they were liable to pay security deposit as well as rent, in so far as the Municipality has not taken any steps pursuant to the decision taken on 7.3.2013, they should not be called upon to pay the arrears of rent or security deposit.
3. According to them, the decision inter alia included, not permitting the vegetable market by petty merchants in the old market place, providing appropriate infrastructure facilities in the new market by way of transportation facilities and various other factors. That apart, clause(9) of the decision inter alia indicated that a Monitoring Committee will be formulated for solving the problems in the new market and such a Monitoring committee has not been formed so far.
4. Learned Single Judge after considering the rival contentions did not interfere with the right of the Municipality to recover the arrears of security deposit or rent. However, appropriate directions have been given to pay arrears of security deposit and rent within a time frame. It was also indicated that no penal interest shall be demanded or charged.
5. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid direction, the petitioners have come up in appeal inter alia contending that the WA.1342/14. 3 learned Single Judge did not consider the non-compliance of the promise extended to the merchants as per the decision taken on 7.3.2013. In so far as no such compliance has been made by the Municipality, the obligation to pay rent has to be kept in abeyance. According to them they are willing to pay the rent and security deposit, but the absence of infrastructure facilities and not preventing the vegetable vending in the old market place have put them to serious hardship.
6. Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant and learned counsel for the Municipality.
7. It is argued by learned counsel for the Municipality that the decision in the meeting held on 7.3.2013 does not amount to a promise as such. They have only agreed to consider the suggestion made by the representatives of the merchants. However, all steps will be taken to ensure that the suggestions substantially are complied. But, it is contended that the petitioners cannot refuse payment of security deposit as well as rent, on account of the non-compliance of any of the suggestions in Ext.P5, as it is not a condition for payment of security deposit or rent.
8. Having heard learned counsel on either side, we are of WA.1342/14. 4 the view that the decision taken in Ext.P5 virtually indicates that the Municipality had agreed to consider the shifting of petty vegetable merchants in the M.L. Road to a suitable place in Kodimatha market. Further they also agreed to consider providing mini stalls to merchants in the old market place. Clause (9) further indicates that Monitoring Committee with representatives of the merchants will be formulated to find out and solve the problems in the new vegetable market. A perusal of Ext.P5 would indicate that the issue involved between the merchants and the Municipality has to be considered by the Monitoring Committee. This Court cannot sit in judgment or consider the question as to whether any infrastructure facility has to be provided or if there is any breach of promise by the Municipality. It is for the Monitoring Committee, that has to take into consideration the various problems faced by persons in carrying on the business in the new market and appropriate remedial measures to be taken. It is argued by learned counsel for the appellant that Monitoring Committee has not been formed so far.
9. Under such circumstances, we are of the view that Municipality has to take appropriate steps to form a monitoring committee as early as possible, so that all the grievance of the WA.1342/14. 5 petitioners can be dealt with. But it does not mean that they should not pay the security deposit or arrears of rent as agreed by them. Hence we dispose of the writ appeal, modifying the judgment of the learned Single Judge as under: The respondent Municipality shall ensure that a Monitoring Committee shall be formed along with representatives of merchants in the new market, within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. As far as the liability to pay the amount, we grant further one month to pay the amounts as directed by learned Single Judge. Sd/- ASHOK BHUSHAN, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- A.M.SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE. sou.