Josy P.J vs Kochi Muncipal Coprporation
2022 Latest Caselaw 10642 Ker

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                 PRESENT
                  THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH
         FRIDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF OCTOBER 2022 / 29TH ASWINA, 1944
                         WP(C) NO. 33625 OF 2022
PETITIONER

             JOSY P.J
             AGED 53 YEARS
             S/O JAMES, 26/830A(1)
             PUTHENPARAMBIL(H) , KALLUKULAM ROAD
             KALLUKULAM, NAZARETH, MATTANCHERRY, PIN - 682002
             BY ADVS.
             ABDUL JALEEL.A
             M.A.SULFIA
             M.J.PAVU
             K.M.ABDUL MAJEED
             P.J.SHIJO


RESPONDENTS:

     1       KOCHI MUNCIPAL COPRPORATION
             FORT KOCHI ZONAL OFFICE
             REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY,
             PB NO-1016, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI , PIN - 682011
     2       ASST. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
             KOCHI MUNCIPAL COPRPORATION,
             DIVISIONAL OFFICE, FORTKOCHI, KOCHI, PIN - 682001

             SRI.K.JANARDHANA SHENOY (SC) R1 & R2
     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
21.10.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO.33625 OF 2022
                                     2




                          JUDGMENT

Dated this the 21st day of October, 2022

The petitioner, a Wayside Vendor and who is a

permanent resident of Kochi, is aggrieved by Ext.P1 notice

issued by the Assistant Executive Engineer of the Municipal

Corporation of Cochin, whereby the petitioner has been

directed to remove his Bunk situated in Division No.28

immediately.

2. The petitioner states that he is running the Bunk for

the last more than 38 years. He has Ext.P2 licence also. He

has been issued with an I.D Number. All of a sudden, without

any notice, the petitioner has been directed to remove the

Bunk.

3. Counsel for the petitioner contended that the

respondents ought to have noted that the petitioner is one of

the beneficiaries of a Master Plan introduced by various

Government Agencies to rehabilitate the road side vendors in WP(C) NO.33625 OF 2022

the Municipal area. The Bunk Shop operated by the petitioner

is constructed at his own cost and it is in existence for more

than 38 years. The petitioner has purchased the shop for more

than 12 years and is conducting the said shop ever since. In

the circumstances, the petitioner cannot be unceremoniously

ousted from the Bunk.

4. Standing Counsel entered appearance and resisted

the writ petition. The Standing Counsel pointed out that the

petitioner does not have licence to hold a Bunk. There are

more than 252 Bunks in the Corporation area, out of which

only 116 Bunks are licenced. The Corporation has been taking

efforts to remove all the unauthorised Bunks, which are

causing obstruction to the pedestrians and vehicular traffic.

The Standing Counsel further pointed out that Ext.P2 licence

held by the petitioner is only a Street Vending Licence, on the

basis of which the petitioner cannot construct a Bunk. WP(C) NO.33625 OF 2022

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner

and the learned Standing Counsel representing the

respondents.

6. According to the petitioner, he has been conducting

street vending in the Bunk for the last more than 38 years. By

Ext.P1, the petitioner has been directed to remove the Bunk.

He has not been issued with any Show-cause Notice before

issuance of Ext.P1. According to the petitioner, the Bunk is the

sole livelihood of the petitioner and his family. The petitioner

has submitted Ext.P7 reply when he received Ext.P1 notice.

7. In the facts and circumstances of the case, this

Court is of the view that the Secretary or any other competent

officer shall consider Ext.P7 reply given by the petitioner and

take a decision, in accordance with law.

In the circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of

directing the parties to treat Ext.P1 as a Show-cause Notice

and Ext.P7 as reply given to Ext.P1 notice. The competent WP(C) NO.33625 OF 2022

among the respondents shall consider Ext.P7 and pass

appropriate orders thereon, in accordance with law, within a

period of four weeks.

sd/-

N.NAGARESH JUDGE hmh WP(C) NO.33625 OF 2022

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 33625/2022

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF IMPUGNED NOTICE ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 07/ 10/2022 Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE LICENSE ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 25/11/2021 IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER Exhibit P3 THE PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING THE PARTICULAR BUNK OCCUPIED BY PETITIONER AND OTHER BUNKS IN THE DHARMASHAL LANE.

Exhibit P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ELECTRICAL BILL DATED 15-09-2022 Exhibit P5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE DISCHARGE SUMMARY DURING ISSUED BY AMRITHA HOSPITAL DATED 30-07-22 Exhibit P6 THE TRUE COPY OF THE TREATMENT FOR HIS ALIMENT AND THE LETTER ISSUED BY AMRITA HOSPITAL DATED 24-08-22 WILL PROVE HIS PRESENT STATE OF HEALTH Exhibit P7 THE TRUE COPY OF THE THE REPLY GIVEN BY THE PETITIONER DATED 10.10.2022