The petitioner, a fruit vendor who has taken two shops on rent from the first respondent Municipality is aggrieved by Ext.P3 proceedings by which he has been directed to deposit a huge amount as security for continuing in occupation of his shop room. The petitioner has challenged Ext.P3 by filing Ext.P4 appeal. The appeal is pending before the third respondent. The petitioner has filed this writ petition apprehending that, his appeal would not be decided on merits for the reason that in Ext.P5 it is stated that the present action has been initiated on the basis of a decision taken by the Municipal Council. The petitioner seeks the issue of appropriate directions for the consideration of Ext.P4, without being influenced by the decision of the Municipality referred to WPC 29420/2014 2 in Ext.P5. 2. In view of the limited relief sought, I do not consider it necessary to issue notice to the respondents.
This writ petition is disposed of directing the third respondent to consider Ext.P4 appeal submitted by the petitioner against Ext.P3 in accordance with law and to finally dispose of the same, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner also without being influenced by the decision of the Municipal Council No:6(1) dated 12.11.2013 referred to in Ext.P5. Until the appeal is finally disposed of in accordance with the above direction, the demand for enhanced security shall be kept in abeyance.
jj /True copy/ Sd/-
K. SURENDRA MOHAN Judge WPC 29420/2014 3