S.P. Chaly, J.

1. These Writ Petition are filed by the petitioners seeking to quash Ext. P2 resolution of the 1st respondent Municipal Corporation bearing No. G19-19133/05 dated 29.5.2007. Since the subject matter of these Writ Petitions are one and the same, I think it is only just and proper that both the Writ Petitions are disposed of by a common judgment. I am herewith referring to the facts in W.P.(C) No. 20593/2007 and the decision taken by me in the said case will decide the fate of other Writ Petition.

2. Brief facts for the disposal of the W.P.(C) No. 20593/2007 are as follows:

3. Petitioners are traders conducting business at Kizhekkekkotta in Thrissur town. The land in which their shops were situated was acquired by the Thrissur Municipal Corporation. In a resolution passed by the Municipality on 12.1.1973 it was decided to construct a municipal shopping complex within one year and to allot shop rooms to those tenants whose shop rooms were involved in the acquisition proceedings. The land was acquired by the Corporation on an agreement to rehabilitate the petitioners each in the new shopping complex at Kizhakkekota. Along with Kizhekkekkotta similar acquisition were also made by the respondent at Kuruppam road junction, Patturaickal Junction and Chembukkavu. The construction of the said shopping complex was already over and traders were rehabilitated.

4. It is the further contention of the petitioners that the construction of the Municipal shopping complex at Kizhakkekkotta was delayed. After the construction of the shopping complex at Kizhakkekkotta a resolution was passed by the respondent, evident from Ext. P1 on 17.10.2003 to rehabilitate the petitioners and the other tenants in the new shopping complex. Accordingly, petitioners were allotted rooms bearing various numbers. As per Ext. P1 Municipal Council fixed licence fee at the rate of Rs. 6 per square feet. While doing so, respondent Municipal Corporation was adopting the same policy which they followed earlier while rehabilitating the evicted tenants in the other shopping complex mentioned supra. It is also contended that Ext. P1 resolution passed by the Municipality has become final and conclusive.

5. That apart, it is contended by the petitioners that, due to political reasons and other extraneous consideration in the Council Meeting held on 28.05.2007 respondent cancelled Ext. P1 resolution and thereupon the licence fee was enhanced to Rs. 25 per square feet from Rs. 6 per square feet as evident from Ext. P2. In pursuance to Ext. P2, notices were issued to the petitioners to execute agreement within 24 hours and remit the licence fee for 6 months as deposit at the enhanced rate and notice thus issued to the 1st and 2nd petitioners are produced as Exts. P3 and P4. The petitioners were also threatened with cancellation of allotment if they are refusing to sign the papers. Under such threat, petitioners were compelled to sign the documents with the Municipality. It is the further contention of the petitioners that, Ext. P2 resolution passed by the respondent is without authority and sanction of law and therefore illegal. It is the further contention of the petitioners that Government alone is vested with power under Section57 of the Municipality Act to cancel or amend the resolution passed by the Municipal Council under the circumstances specified thereunder. Even while exercising powers under Section 57 of the Act, Government is bound to refer the matter for consideration of the Ombudsman constituted under Section 271(g) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act or to the Tribunal for the Local Self Government Institutions constituted under Section 271(s)of the said Act.

6. It is contended that respondent has cancelled Ext. P1 resolution without the involvement of circumstances contemplated under Section 57 of the Act and therefore bad under law. It is also contended that the Municipality is not vested with any power to suo motu cancel an earlier resolution and t