Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

The petitioner is aggrieved by the action taken by the respondents to evict the petitioner from the public premises in Malampuzha Garden. According to the petitioner, he is a handicapped person with 50% disability. He was formerly employed under the Kerala Fisheries Corporation and considering the same, a Sea food stall at Malampuzha Garden Car Park which was run by the Matsyafed was given to him on monthly rent.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner has been conducting the stall by putting up temporary constructions. It appears that action has been taken against the petitioner after the renovation of Malampuzha garden was over. According to the petitioner, since he was granted the facility as per the terms agreed to by the Matsyafed, he should have been considered for allotment of a stall itself.

3. In the statement filed by the 3rd respondent, it is pointed out that initially the Matsyafed itself has directed the petitioner to surrender the stall to the Department and the petitioner approached the Civil Court. The petitioner was not conducting the stall in an enclosed building with roof. The vendors were alloted an open space for selling fancy goods. As per the decision of the core committee based on the specified norms, 24 numbers of vendors were alloted in the new places. Thereafter the Department issued notice to unauthorized vendors to vacate the place within a stipulated period. The petitioner was also asked to vacate the stall. It is pointed out that the Department has already started the demolishing work of building in car parking area and the Government has spent nearly 22 crore rupees for the renovation works of Malampuzha Garden and premises. The only work pending for completion is the car parking area development. Lastly, in paragraph 6, it is mentioned that the Government is planning to implement the third phase development of the Malampuzha Garden and premises to enhance the standard to an international level. It is assured that the petitioner will be considered on priority basis for the allotment of new space, in future, if the amount due is remitted by the petitioner on behalf of the Matsyafed. It is stated that the amount calculated comes to more than Rs.10.36 lakhs.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the above amount is not due from the petitioner but from the Matsyafed. Whatever that be, the petitioner has also been evicted from the premises during the pendency of the writ petition. If the petitioner has got any dispute with regard to the amount, he can raise it before the appropriate authority.

This writ petition is accordingly disposed of recording the statement made in paragraph 6. If the respondents are issuing a notice with regard to the payment of the amount, the petitioner will be free to raise all his objections in the matter.