The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking the following reliefs :
“i) to call for the records pertaining to the Ext.P9 and Quash the same.
ii) issue a writ of mandamus or such other writ, direction or order directing the respondent to allow the petitioner to continue to run the shop in room number 11 of the old bus stand of Vadakara municipality, till a new decision taken by the respondent in this aspect for reducing the license fee and thereafter also.
iii) render such other orders or directions, as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”
2. According to the petitioner, he is a physically handicapped person who had been put in possession of a fruit stall in the old bus stand of Vadakara Municipality, as the licensee thereof. His case is that, he could not remit the licence fee due to financial difficulties. He had therefore, submitted a letter to the Municipality expressing his inability to continue business in the licensed premises. According the petitioner, his intention was to get a sympathetic consideration by the Municipality and to see that a reduction in rent was granted to him. It is stated that he being a physically challenged person, is entitled to such a special treatment. However, without giving any further intimation, as per Ext.P9 the shop has been put in auction. Therefore, he has sought for the issue of appropriate orders against conduct of the auction. This writ petition was admitted on 16.05.2014. It has also been ordered on the said date that finalisation of tender proceedings pursuant to Ext.P9 shall only be with permission of this Court.
3. Adv.Sri.T.Naveen appears for the respondent Municipality. A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent. According to the counsel, as per Ext.P6, the petitioner had in very clear terms communicated his inability to continue to conduct business in the licensed premises. In view of his financial difficulties, he had also informed that he would not be able to remit any further amount towards the rent arrears. He has thus intimated the Municipality that he was vacating the premises with effect from 10.01.2014. The Municipality had acting on Ext.P6, issued Ext.P9 to auction the stall to someone else, since the petitioner was not conducting business therein. The present writ petition has thereafter been filed, as an after thought, with the object of putting pressure on the Municipality to accede to the demands of the petitioner. The counsel therefore seeks for vacating the interim order.
4. Heard. A perusal of Ext.P6 shows that, the petitioner has expressed therein in unmistakable terms that he was not interested in continuing business in the licensed room. It is also stated that he had submitted separately an application for cancellation of his licence with effect from 10.01.2014. He has disclaimed responsibility for any damage that may be caused to the shop room, which is not enclosed by any shutter or lock, from the activities of unauthorised persons. He has also intimated that he would not be responsible for any business conducted in the shop room from 09.01.2014. According to him, he had removed all his possessions from the shop room. The counsel for the petitioner admits the issue of Ext.P6.
5. Having admitted the issue of Ext.P6, it is not open to the petitioner to turn around and challenge the consequential proceedings initiated by the respondent Municipality to auction the premises to some other person. According to the learned counsel for the respondent, six persons had participated in the auction and the Municipality is in a position to give the room on rent to another person, at a substantially higher rent. Because of the interim order passed by this Court, the respondent is not in a position to do anything.
6. In the above circumstances, I am not satisfied that the petitioner is entitled to any of the reliefs claimed in this writ petition. The petitioner cannot challenge the action of the Municipality in conducting an auction which is the only option available before the Municipality, in view of the stand taken by the petitioner in Ext.P6. The petitioner has in Ext.P6, unconditionally surrendered vacant possession of the licensed premises. It is also not in dispute that, the petitioner does not have possession of the shop rooms.
7. The counsel for the petitioner however complains that, though an amount of ₹5,49,900/- had been deposited as security for the purpose of issuing licence to him, the said amount has not been returned so far. The counsel for the Municipality assures that the said amount would be returned to the petitioner after deducting the arrears of rent and other charges due to the Municipality.
The above being the position, I find no grounds to interfere with Ext.P9 or to grant any of the reliefs sought for. This writ petition is therefore dismissed. However, the respondent is directed to return to the petitioner the amount of security deposit furnished by him at the time of taking the building on licence, after deducting the arrears of rent if any due up to 10.01.2014. The amount shall be returned, as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of two weeks of the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
Sd/-
K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE.
AV