Grievance of the petitioner is mainly with regard to Ext.P9 proceedings issued by the 3rd respondent, whereby the petitioner has been required to remove the extended portion of the Jetty within one week, lest coercive proceedings should be taken against him. It is stated that, there is much discrepancy in contents, with reference to the earlier notice issued to the petitioner as borne by Ext.P7 dated 05.11.2014 and further that there is no rhyme or reason for having pursued such a course, as the petitioner is in operation of the Jetty for quite long and that no encroachment or additional construction has been effected by the petitioner at any point of time.
2. The sequence of the events is as follows; The 'father in law' of the petitioner by name Sri.N.D.Narayana Shenoy, was given a licence to run the Jetty in the area of the Port Trust way back in the year 2000. By virtue of the 'Will' executed by the 'father in law', the petitioner came to be the beneficiay, as to the rights and liberties over the Jetty. Ext.P1 is the Death Certificate WP(c). No.2929 of 2015 2 of the 'father in law' and accordingly, the Jetty came to the possession of the petitioner in the year 2002, who was operating the same. The petitioner points out that, because of accumulation of mud around the Jetty, it became necessary to remove the same, so as to enable the fishing boats to have access to the Jetty. Accordingly Ext.P4 application was filed before the 2nd respondent on 01.03.2005. After considering the merits involved, the same was sanctioned as per Ext.P5 and the petitioner has carried out the operation as well. It is also pointed out that, the licence fee was enhanced by the Port Trust to an unconscionable extent and that the petitioner satisfied the same as well without default. Ext.P6 is the receipt dated 9.4.2013 for satisfaction of the renewal fee. Still, on a fine morning, the petitioner has been served with Ext.P7 notice dated 05.11.2014, referring to same unauthorised construction/extension and seeking to have the said extent removed. On receipt of Ext.P7, the factual position was sought to be explained by submitting Ext.P8 reply. After considering the same, Ext.P9 order came to be passed, still in variance with the measurements and the specifications mentioned in Ext.P7. This made the petitioner to WP(c). No.2929 of 2015 3 approach this Court by filing the writ petition.
3. A detailed counter affidavit has been filed by the 2nd respondent pointing out that the licence given to the 'father in law' of the petitioner was only to construct a 'wooden Jetty' having the size of 10 x 3 meters (30 sq.meters) for having access to the boats owned by him. A copy of the said order along with the sketch showing the measurements of the Jetty to be constructed has been produced as Ext.R2(a). Subsequently, the respondent Port Trust obtained complaints from different corners as to the extension of Jetty and unauthorised activity being pursued by the petitioner. Pursuant to this, a spot inspection was conducted, upon which it was revealed that substantial extension has been effected by the petitioner leading to Ext.P7 notice, wherein approximate measurements were given on a visual basis, observing that it was to the tune of 10.5 mtrs. X 3 meters. Subsequently, a physical verification was conducted and actual measurements were taken, which revealed that the present size of the Jetty was 20.5 x 3 meters (61.5 sq.meters), virtually double the size as originally granted as per Ext.R2(a). It was in the said circumstances, that Ext.P9 order was issued taking a lenient view WP(c). No.2929 of 2015 4 as put forth by the learned counsel for the Port Trust, who submits that the Port Trust, for the time being, does not intend to cancel the licence or to cause the entire structure to be demolished and gave an opportunity to the petitioner to remove only the extended portion of the Jetty, to be in conformity with Ext.R2(a) licence already given. The respondents also point out that, the wooden Jetty which was already constructed therein was demolished and concrete construction was effected by the petitioner without consent from the Port Trust. It is revealed from paragraph 4 of the counter affidavit that, the petitioner has sublet the premises after encroachment and extension, to various other persons as well and is minting money by virtue of such unauthorised exercise. Reference is made to the various conditions particularly, at clause (c), (d) and (e) of Ext.P3 licence which stand violated and that the unauthorised extension stands substantiated in view of the facts and figures.
4. After hearing both the sides, this Court finds that, the sanction given to the petitioner's 'father-in-law' who was the original licencee was only to have the Jetty constructed having the size specifically prescribed in Ext.R2(a). Since the petitioner WP(c). No.2929 of 2015 5 came to be the beneficiary of the 'Will' executed by the original licencee and virtually has stepped into the shoes of the original licencee, the petitioner is having the right to pursue the operation strictly in conformity with the original licence and nothing more.
5. In the said circumstance, there will be a direction to the petitioner to confine the activity to the premises covered by Ext.R2(a) licence, adhering to the conditions incorporated in Ext.P3. The unauthorised extension as mentioned above shall be removed by the petitioner voluntarily within 'two weeks' from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, failing which it will be open for the respondent Port Trust to cause demolition of the same, with the assistance of the Police, if so necessitated and realise the cost from the petitioner. On such an event, it will also be open for the Port Trust to consider whether the petitioner should be permitted to continue with the licence and whether it could be cancelled.
The Writ Petition stands disposed of as above.
Sd/-
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE.
Pn