High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2023-08-03Writ petition dismissed; pending interlocutory ...

Abdul Hameed and others v. State of Kerala and others

Case / Petition Number:WP(C) NO. 31646 OF 2015

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Amit Rawal
Judgment Date: 2023-08-03
Court Decision / Holding: Writ petition dismissed. The court held there was no merit in the petition, noting lack of material showing entitlement to longer occupancy beyond the three-year term and absence of proven rehabilitation; pending interlocutory applications were also dismissed.
Final Disposition: Writ petition dismissed; pending interlocutory applications, if any, would stand dismissed.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Abdul Hameed
Santosh K
Arumugan K

Respondents

State of Kerala represented by Secretary to the Government, Department of Water Resources, Government Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram-695001
The Chief Engineer, Department of Irrigation Project One, Kavery Cell, Kozhikode-673001
The Executive Engineer, Office of the Executive Engineer, Irrigation Division, Malappuzha, Palakkad District-673651
District Collector, Palakkad-678001

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Kaleeswaram Raj

Counsels for Respondents

• Appu P.S., Government Pleader

Case Synopsis & Summary

Petitioners Abdul Hameed, Santosh K, and Arumugan K run shops in government stalls at Malampuzha Dam and Garden since 1990. In 2011, evictions for beautification were followed by assurances of rehabilitation which never materialized. Petitioners claim they were coerced into tender processes for stall allotment and that the allotments were for a renewable three-year term rather than perpetual occupancy. They challenge Ext. P8 and Exts. P14–P18 as unjust, illegal, and arbitrary, and seek renewal of allotments or rehabilitation in similar stalls in the Malampuzha Garden, along with time to clear arrears and protection from eviction. Respondents contend rehabilitation occurred in spaces earmarked for evictees, with some persons already rehabilitated; eligible traders were allotted stalls after 2016, with agreements for a three-year term and no assurance of indefinite occupancy. Government orders directed stalls to be put up for public auction, but petitioners allegedly participated in tender processes. The court noted lack of material showing entitlement beyond the three-year allotment, and no proven rehabilitation for the petitioners. It rejected the petition, dismissing the writ petition as devoid of merit and closing any pending interlocutory applications. The judgment also cites earlier Court decisions in support of the rejection of similar claims.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners submit that they were evicted for beautification but promised rehabilitation; rehabilitation never materialized. They contend they were removed from long-standing stalls and subjected to tender processes under false pretenses, with three-year allotments and no guarantee of lifetime occupancy. They seek quashing of Exts. P8 and P14–P18 as unjust and arbitrary, renewal of allotments, and space in the Malampuzha Garden for rehabilitation, along with time to clear arrears; they argue their continued possession is justified by prior assurances and long-standing tenancy.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents maintain rehabilitation was provided in spaces earmarked for evictees, and eligible persons were allotted stalls after a policy-driven process (post-2016). They argue petitioners knowingly entered three-year agreements through tender, with no assurance of indefinite occupancy. The government directs auctioning of stalls to optimize utilization, and no illegal or arbitrary conduct is shown to warrant relief.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Unknown	WP(C) NO.6855/2015	Mentioned Only	Exhibit P-7 references this judgment; the current judgment does not discuss its holdings in detail.
Unknown	WP(C) NO.27329/2015	Positive	The court cites this decision as rejecting similar claims, aligning with the current dismissal.
Unknown	WP(C) NO.28179/2014	Mentioned Only	Exhibit P-19 shows the judgment, but the current judgment does not elaborate on its reasoning.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Abdul Hameed and others v. State of Kerala and others and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL** **THURSDAY, THE 3[RD] DAY OF AUGUST 2023 / 12TH SRAVANA, 1945** ## **WP(C) NO. 31646 OF 2015** ## **PETITIONER/S:** 1 ABDUL HAMEED AGED 52 YEARS D/O.MOHAMMED, ALATHUDY HOUSE, PALAPOTTA, KARIYAMKODE.P.O, KOTTAYI, PALAKKAD-678 572 2 SANTHOSH.K S/O.KRISHNAN, SANTHOSH NIVAS, S.N.NAGAR, MALAMPUZHA, PALAKKAD-678 651 3 ARUMUGAN.K S/O.KRISHNAN, SANTHOSH NIVAS, S.N NAGAR, MALAMPUZHA, PALAKKAD-678 651 BY ADV SRI.KALEESWARAM RAJ ## **RESPONDENT/S:** 1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 2 THE CHIEF ENGINEER DEPARTMENT OF IRRIGATION PROJECT ONE, KAVERY CELL KOZHIKODE-673 001. 3 THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER OFFICE OF TEH EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, IRRIGATION DIVISION, MALAPUZHA, PALAKKAD DISTRICT-673 651. 4 DISTRICT COLLECTOR PALAKKAD-678 001. BY SRI.APPU P.S., GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03.08.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: **WP(C) NO. 31646 OF 2015** 2 ## J U D G M E N T ## 1. Petitioners approached this Court with the following prayers: “i. To issue a writ of certiorari quashing Ext. P8 to the extent to which it denies the continuation/renewal of allotment of stalls/shop rooms to the petitioners. ii. To declare that the petitioners are entitled to get rehabilitated by allotting similar stalls and shops in the Malampuzha Dam and Garden like the one in which they were doing business before eviction on yearly renewal basis. iii. To issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to permit the petitioners to continue in the present stalls possessed by them and to renew the allotment. iv. To issue a writ of certiorari quashing Ext. P14, P15 and P16 as unjust illegal and arbitrary. v. To issue a writ of certiorari quashing Ext. P17 and P18 as unjust, illegal and arbitrary. **WP(C) NO. 31646 OF 2015** 3 vi. To grant the 2nd and 3rd petitioner time to pay back the arrears of rent as stated in Ext. P17 and P18 in 6 equal monthly installments. vii. To declare that the petitioners are not liable to be evicted/dispossessed from the stalls/shop rooms which they are now in possession of.” 2. The pith and substance of the claim giving cause for claiming the aforementioned prayers is that petitioners had been running various shops in shop rooms/stalls owned by Government in Malampuzha Dam and Garden by paying rent since 1990. In the year 2011 for the purpose of beautification of Malampuzha Garden petitioners were evicted, but owing to protests, Government agreed to rehabilitate them. But, no such rehabilitation was done and insisted petitioners to participate in the tender process for allotment of shop rooms. After negotiation for an amount of Rs.56,000/-, stalls were allotted to petitioners, but allotment was only for a period of three years. Petitioners blindly believed that the authorities actually **WP(C) NO. 31646 OF 2015** 4 deceived them, as the rehabilitation was not for a life time. Petitioners, who were earlier evicted, were treated at par with new aspirants. Similar agreements were entered into by them with the third respondent. Thus, it was submitted that names of petitioners despite having been included in the list of persons prepared by the Executive Engineer entitled for rehabilitation, they were compelled to participate in the tender process only to collect money. This fact is evident from the contents of letter Ext.P20 dated 8.4.2013 placed subsequently vide I.A.No.1/2019. 3. On the other hand, learned State Counsel countered the aforesaid arguments by submitting that rehabilitation of the evictees was done by the Department on the spaces specifically earmarked for those persons and some persons had already been rehabilitated on the basis of the policy. Shops were allotted to all eligible persons who were running shops during previous year i.e. 2016. Petitioners signed the agreement with eyes open, **WP(C) NO. 31646 OF 2015** 5 that it was meant for three years. There was no such assurance given that the allotment would be for infinite period. 4. Third respondent forwarded applications of stall licensees on humanitarian consideration to higher authorities, but the Government, the sole authority, vide Government order dated 25.5.2015 rejected the request of stall licensees and directed respondents to put up stalls for public auction. In order to extend the period, petitioners had been indulging into making submissions and requests, but the fact remains that stalls were allotted to them through tender process. Earlier also petitioners had approached Munsiff's Court, but the Court rejected their petition in view of the decision of this Court in WP(C) No.27329/2015 rejecting their claim. Request to clear the outstanding amount of Rs.74,151/- and Rs.62,404/- was made on the basis of the clauses of the agreement. In the circumstances, petitioners do not have any case and **WP(C) NO. 31646 OF 2015** 6 the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and apprised the paper book. 6. Since this Court had on the basis of the request made by petitioners' counsel pressed the writ petition on behalf of the second petitioner as first and third petitioners alleged to have been rehabilitated, but no order of rehabilitation was placed on record. 7. Counter statement on behalf of the respondents would reveal that stalls were allotted to petitioners through tender process. Petitioners had participated in the tender and allotment was for a period of three years. 8. The pith and substance of the petition revealed that there was an intention to keep possession for longer period than the one mentioned in the allotment. The allotment could have been extended had the petitioners kept on paying rent or marginal increase from time to time or participate in the subsequent allotments. No material has been **WP(C) NO. 31646 OF 2015** 7 placed on record as to whether any outstanding dues have been cleared. Government had already rejected the case of rehabilitation. No material has been placed on record to establish that any of the persons who were evicted in the area where the petitioners were vending items, were rehabilitated. From the aforementioned, I am of the view that writ petition is devoid of any merit and is accordingly dismissed. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, in the writ petition would stand dismissed. Sd/AMIT RAWAL JUDGE jg 8 ## **WP(C) NO. 31646 OF 2015** ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 31646/2015** ## PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBT P-1: TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 30.3.2012 EXHIBIT P-2: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 15.12.2013 EXHIBIT P-3: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATEAD 31.12.2014 EXHIBIT P-4: TREU COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 6.1.2015 FROM THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P-5: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 9.1.2015 EXHIBIT P-6: TRUE COPY OF TEH LETTER DATED 22.1.2015 EXHIBIT P-7: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 4.5.2015 IN W.P(C)NO.6855/2015 EXHIBIT P-8: TRUE COPY OF G.O(RT)NO.405/2015 DATED 25.5.2015 EXHIBIT P-9: TREU COPY OF THE TENDER NOTIFICATION EXHIBIT P-10: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 16.7.2015 IN WP(C)NO.27329/2015 EXHIBIT P-11 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 24.7.2015 IN O.S.571/2015 FILED BY 1ST PETITIONER EXHIBIT P-12 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 24.7.2015 IN O.S 573/2015 FILED BY 2ND PETITIONER EXHIBIT P-13: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 24.7.2015 IN O.S.571/2015 FILED BY 3RD PETITIONER EXHIBIT P-14: TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 16.9.2015 **WP(C) NO. 31646 OF 2015** 9 ISSUED TO THE 1ST PETITIONER EXHIBIT P-15: TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 16.9.2015 ISSUED TO THE 2ND PETITIONER EXHIBIT P-16 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 16.9.2015 ISSUED TO THE 3RD PETITIONER EXHIBIT P.17: TURE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 29.9.2015 ISSUED TO THE 1ST PETITIONER EXHIBIT P-18 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 29.9.2015 ISSUED TO THE 2ND PETITIONER EXHIBIT P-19 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 28.11.2014 IN W.P(C)NO.28179/2014 EXHIBIT P-20: TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO A6/GENERAL/13 DATED 8.4.2013 EXHIBIT P-21 : TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE ORDER NO A6/2615/REHABILITATION/14 DATED 18.3.2016 EXHIBIT P-22 : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO A61456/REHABILIATION 17-18 DATED 18.4.2018 EXHIBIT P-23:TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 14.3.2018 ISSUED BY THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,IRRIGATION DIVISION, MALAMPUZHA EXHIBIT P-24 TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER NO 1380/13 IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT DATED 30.12.2013 EXHIBIT P-25: TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT NO.A6/REHABILITATION/16-17 DATED 16/04/2016 BETWEEN THE 1ST PETITIONER AND EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, IRRIGATION DIVISION, MALAMPUZHA.a