Kerala High Court
Palayam Connemara Merchant And ... vs The State Of Kerala on 22 April, 2025
Author: Devan Ramachandran
Bench: Devan Ramachandran
2025:KER:32827
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. V. BALAKRISHNAN
TUESDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 2ND VAISAKHA, 1947
WA NO. 805 OF 2025
ORDER DATED 10.04.2025
ARISING FROM : WP(C) NO.14892/2025
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
PALAYAM CONNEMARA MERCHANT AND LABOURERS
ASSOCIATION,
REGISTRATION NO: TVM/TC/98/2025,
SHOP NO: 273, CONNEMARA MARKET, PALAYALAM,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
REPRESENT BY ITS SECRETARY RAJAS.J,
PIN - 690001.
BY ADVS.
C.UNNIKRISHNAN (KOLLAM)
G.GOWARDHAN DEV G. NAIR
V.ASWIN
VIVEK NAIR P.
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 THE STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
PIN - 695001.
2025:KER:32827
WA NO. 805 OF 2025
-2-
2 THE SECRETARY,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM CORPORATION
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
LMS-VELLAYAMBALAM ROAD, OPPOSITE LMS COMPOUND,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA, PIN - 695033.
3 THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001.
4 THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.,
PIN - 695001.
5 KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PATTOM P.O,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695004.
6 CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
SMART CITY THIRUVANANTHAPURAM LTD, 4TH FLOOR,
FELICITY SQUARE, STATUE, PALAYAM,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA, PIN - 695001.
SRI SUMAN CHAKRAVARTHY-SC;
SRI T NAVEEN-SC;
SMT M U VIJAYALAKSHMI-SC
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
22.04.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:32827
WA NO. 805 OF 2025
-3-
JUDGMENT
Devan Ramachandran, J.
The appellant impugns the interim order of
a learned Judge of this Court dated 10.04.2025,
primarily citing one apprehension, namely, that
the now constructed temporary Market Complex
does not have proper ventilation and is
surrounded by 'legacy waste', which cause
pungent smell and insalubrious conditions.
2. Sri.C.Unnikrishnan - learned
counsel for the appellant, submitted that the
impugned order is based on a statement - filed
by the 2nd respondent, namely the Secretary of
the Thiruvananthapuram Corporation, but that the
contents of the same are contrary to truth. He
pointed out that there is no air-conditioning in
the new building; and that the facilities
2025:KER:32827
WA NO. 805 OF 2025
therein are neither better nor even satisfactory
in comparison to the old Market building; and
hence that the refusal to renew the earlier
interim order passed by this Court on 08.04.2025
is illegal and unlawful.
3. We see that the controversy in this
case is only as to whether the members of the
appellant - Association can be forced to take up
the alternate accommodation in the new temporary
building, after evicting themselves from the old
one.
4. As we have seen above, the primary
cause projected by the appellant is that the new
temporary building is not ready to receive or
accommodate the shops, as has now been asserted.
5. Sri.Suman Chakravarthy - learned
Standing Counsel for the Thiruvananthapuram
2025:KER:32827
WA NO. 805 OF 2025
Corporation, admitted that there is some amount
of 'legacy waste' in the property; but added
that this cannot be cited as a ground by the
members of the appellant to resist eviction from
the old complex because both the said buildings
are within the same compound. He added that the
waste itself has been created by people like the
members of the appellant - Association, but that
the Corporation is now trying their best -
through bio-mining and other innovative
mechanisms - to clear it off. He assured this
Court that every step will be taken by the
Corporation to make the premises worthy of a
market; but reiteratingly asserted that the
attempt of the appellant is to take advantage of
the wrongs of their own members and to refuse to
move into the new temporary building, thus
2025:KER:32827
WA NO. 805 OF 2025
creating a stalemate.
6. Sri.Jaju Babu, learned Senior Counsel,
instructed by Sri.Brijesh Mohan - appearing for
the 6th respondent, submitted that the new
temporary building has been constructed
providing every necessary facility; but conceded
that there is no air conditioning as of now. He
explained that this building was constructed so
as to reconstruct the old market to modern
standards; and that the refusal of the members
of the appellant to shift from there would
frustrate such, leading to irreparable
prejudice, since it is a time-bound program.
7. The above dialectical positions being
recorded, there can be little doubt that there
is great public interest involved in this case.
The gravamen is not merely as projected by the
2025:KER:32827
WA NO. 805 OF 2025
appellant - namely whether they can be forced to
shift themselves into the temporary building
awaiting the reconstruction of the old one; but
if such construction aligns with the
requirements and interests of the citizens.
8. It is conceded by all sides that the
old building requires reconstruction; for which,
the existing vendors will have to shift
themselves out into either the temporary
building or somewhere else.
9. The only impediment for shifting to the
new temporary building, now impelled by the
appellant is that the premises of the said
building are also unhygienic and are enveloped
by a pungent smell.
10. There can certainly be no controversy
that, whether it be the temporary building, the
2025:KER:32827
WA NO. 805 OF 2025
old building or the new one to be constructed,
every market ought to be maintained conducive to
public health and to the unexpendable civilized
standards.
11. We cannot fathom how a market can have
'legacy waste', as has now been said to us, and
why a mechanism like bio-mining has been
required. Prima facie, this can only be because
such waste has been allowed to accumulate for a
long time, rendering it difficult to manage.
12. In such perspective, we are firm in
our opinion that the project ought to be allowed
to continue and that any interruption to the
construction of the new building may be contrary
to public interest.
13. That said, the apprehension of the
appellant must also be taken into account in its
2025:KER:32827
WA NO. 805 OF 2025
proper perspective. If they are asked to shift
into the new temporary building, then the
Corporation must ensure that its premises are
clean and commensurate to standards for vending
food articles and for human consumption.
14. In such view, though we are not
inclined to interfere with the impugned interim
order, we clarify that, upon shifting of the
vendors and during such process, into the new
temporary building, every requisite measure and
step shall be taken by the Corporation to ensure
that all waste, including 'legacy waste' is
removed and that there is no factor inhibiting
public health or to cause danger to it, on a
regular basis. This shall be confirmed by the
Secretary of the Corporation through such
methods/mechanisms as are statutorily
2025:KER:32827
WA NO. 805 OF 2025
permissible; and a report to such effect shall
be placed before the learned Single Bench, when
the Writ Petition is heard and disposed of.
This Appeal is thus ordered.
Sd/-
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
JUDGE
Sd/-
P. V. BALAKRISHNAN
akv JUDGE
