IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 1152 of 2010(T)
1. MATHEW.M.S. PRESIDENCY COURT,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. DISTRICT TOURIST PROMOTION COUNCIL,
... Respondent
2. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, IDUKKI DISTRICT.
For Petitioner :SRI.THAMPAN THOMAS
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :07/02/2011
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
-------------------------
W.P (C) No. 1152 of 2010
--------------------------
Dated this the 7th February, 2011
J U D G M E N T
Petitioner approached this Court challenging Ext.P3,
a notice issued by the 1st respondent requiring the
petitioner to vacate from the premises in respect of which
Ext.R1 (a) licence has been granted to him. It is stated
that a building with eight rooms was given to the
petitioner on license, a copy of which is produced as
Ext.R1 (a). This licence was for a period of two years and
the period has expired on 18.6.2009. In view of the
expiry of the period, petitioner was issued notice dated
15.6.2009 asking him to vacate from the premises. At that
stage, petitioner applied to the 1st respondent requesting
to extend the period of licence.
2. The counter affidavit shows that a meeting of
the 1st respondent considered this request of the petitioner
and it was decided not to extend the licence and to invite
fresh tender/auction. In pursuance to the above, Ext.P3
notice dated 1.1.2010 was issued calling upon the
W.P (C) No.1152 of 2010
2
petitioner to vacate from the premises. It is in these
circumstances, this writ petition is filed and on the
strength of an interim order obtained from this Court,
petitioner is continuing occupation of the premises.
3. Admittedly, the period of license has expired.
Therefore, the petitioner can have no right whatsoever to
insist on continuance of his occupation of the premises.
The fact that license fee has been paid to the period
subsequent to 18.6.2009 ,when the license period
expired,also will not give rise to any legal right for the
petitioner to contend that licence has been renewed.
Therefore, the petitioner will have to surrender vacant
possession of the premises and respondents are free to
conduct fresh tender/auction as they deem it appropriate.
4. In that view, Ext.P3 cannot be faulted for on any
ground.
5. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the
petitioner has invested considerable amount and is now
operating the resort for tourism purposes. Therefore,
immediate eviction of the petitioner, is of no benefit to the
respondents also. Therefore, I feel that the interest of the
W.P (C) No.1152 of 2010
3
respondents will not be prejudiced if the petitioner is
permitted to continue the occupation of the premises till a
fresh license is granted to anybody by conducting fresh
auction/tender. However, taking note of the submission
made by the learned Government Pleader that amounts are
due from the petitioner, it is clarified that continued
occupation can only be allowed if the petitioner clears the
entire arrears that are due.
6. Therefore I dispose of this writ petition with the
following directions.
Challenge against Ext.P3 is repelled and it is directed
that respondents are free to conduct fresh tender/auction
for granting licence in respect of the premises in question.
Petitioner will be permitted to continue to occupy the
premises till licence is granted to anybodyelse subject to
condition that the arrears if any shall be cleared and future
licence fee at the applicable rate shall be paid without any
default.
Sd/-
ANTONY DOMINIC
JUDGE
ma
/True copy/ P.A to Judge