The petitioner claims to be a a physically handicapped person. Exts.P1 and P2 are the documents showing that he is a person with 50% disability. The petitioner has been allocated with a room in the Valavannur Grama Panchayat shopping complex. The contention of the petitioner is that, he was entitled to the benefit of Ext.P5 circular that directs one room to be set apart for allotment to a physically disabled person. He was not given the benefit of the said circular. Apart from the above, it is pointed out on the basis of Ext.P3 that the petitioner is being charged a higher rent in comparison to the rent paid by other rooms in the shopping complex having better amenities. The petitioner is conducting a DTP centre in the room allotted to him. He has now been issued with Ext.P6 notice demanding payment of an amount of Rs.13,433/- being the rent in respect of two months, that is remaining in arrears. The petitioner therefore seeks the issue of appropriate directions setting aside Ext.P6. 2. According to the counsel for the petitioner, had the petitioner been granted the benefit of Ext.P5 circular, it would not have been necessary for him to participate in the auction and to bid for the room that is now possessed by him, at a substantially higher rent. This is a case in which the petitioner has not only been denied the benefit of Ext.P5 but at the same time he is charged with a rent that is in excess of what is recovered from the other tenants.
3. Heard. According to the counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner was allotted the room that is in his possession at an auction that was conducted on 10.8.2011. It is worth noticing that the petitioner had participated in the said auction and was aware of the fact that he was bound by the terms and conditions of the auction. He was the successful bidder at the auction and had thereafter executed an agreement with the Panchayat agreeing to pay rent at the rate for which he had bid the room at the auction. Thereafter, he has been in possession of the room conducting his business from 2011 onwards. Ext.P6 proceedings have been issued to him for the reason that the rent in respect of the shop room is remaining in arrears for the past two months. It is only when the Panchayat has sought for the rent that is in arrears, that the petitioner has come forward with the present contentions. It is therefore clear that the object of the petitioner is to some how evade the payment of rent for which he has entered into an agreement with the Panchayat. The petitioner after having participated in the auction, having been allotted the shop room on the basis of the offer submitted by him and having executed an agreement for payment of the rent that was agreed upon, cannot be permitted to turn around and question the said acts, at this length of time. If the petitioner had been denied the benefit of Ext.P5 circular he ought to have challenged the same at the relevant time. For the above reasons I find no grounds to entertain this writ petition or to grant any of the reliefs sought for. This writ petition is therefore dismissed.
jj /True copy/ Sd/-
K. SURENDRA MOHAN Judge