A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar, J.

As both these Writ Appeals arise out of the common judgment dated 19.11.2015 of the learned single Judge in W.P.(C) Nos.20593 of 2007 and 29425 of 2008 respectively, they are taken up for consideration together and disposed by this common judgment. For the sake of convenience, the reference to the parties is as they appear in the writ petitions and the brief facts that arise for consideration are taken from W.P.(C)No.20593 of 2007.

2. The petitioners are stated to be traders conducting business at Kizhakkekkotta in Thrissur Town. The land in which their shops were situated was acquired by the Thrissur Municipal Corporation which, thereafter, through a resolution dated 12.1.1973, decided to construct a municipal complex within a year and to allot shop rooms therein to those persons who had to vacate on account of the acquisition proceedings. On completion of the construction of the new shopping complex, steps were taken to rehabilitate the traders who had earlier occupied the lands acquired by the Corporation. A resolution was passed by the respondent Corporation on 17.10.2003 (Ext.P1) towards this end and, as per the said resolution, the municipal council fixed the licence fee for the shop rooms at the rate of Rs.6/-per square feet in the ground floor and Rs.5/-per square feet in the higher floors of the new building. The resolution contemplated the grant of a concessional rate of licence fee to those persons who had been rehabilitated pursuant to the acquisition proceedings. It would appear that, by another resolution dated 29.5.2007 (Ext.P2), the municipal council cancelled its earlier resolution, and the licence fee was enhanced to Rs.25/-per square feet in the ground floor and Rs.18/-per square feet in the higher floors. Based on Ext.P2 resolution, notices were also issued to the petitioners to execute an agreement with the Municipal Corporation and remit the licence fee at the enhanced rate for six months as deposit. The petitioners were also threatened with a cancellation of their respective allotments, if they refused to execute the agreement. Aggrieved by the enhancement of the licence fee, as also by the direction of the Municipal Corporation to execute agreements based on Ext.P2 resolution, the petitioners approached this court through the writ petitions aforementioned seeking, inter alia, a direction to quash Ext.P2 resolution on the ground that the resolution was passed in violation of the express provisions of Rule 13 of the Kerala Municipality (Procedure for Meeting) Rules, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as the 1995 Rules). The petitioners also prayed for a declaration that they were entitled to the rooms in the new shopping complex under the Rehabilitation Scheme based on the licence fee fixed in Ext.P1 resolution.

3. The learned single Judge, who considered the matter, found that the resolution passed by the municipal council could be cancelled either in terms of Section 57 of the Kerala Municipalities Act or in exercise of the suo motu power of the Municipality under Rule 13 of the 1995 Rules. On finding that the provisions of Section 57 of the Act did not apply to the facts in the writ petitions before him, the learned Judge proceeded to consider whether Ext.P2 resolution could be legally sustained in view of Rule 13 of the 1995 Rules. The learned Judge found that in terms of Rule 13 of the 1995 Rules, the cancellation of Ext.P1 resolution could have been done only within a period of three months from the date of its passing and, in as much as Ext.P2 resolution was passed after the expiry of the period of three months from the date of Ext.P1 resolution, the said resolution had to be seen as without authority of law and in excess of the jurisdiction vested in the respondent Municipal Corporation. On the issue of the power of the municipality to enhance the licence fee periodically, the learned Judge found that in terms of Section 215(2)(a) of the Municipalities Act, the Munic