Judicial review of municipal decisions is limited to ensuring legal compliance, not the merits of the decisions themselves, reinforcing the autonomy of local governance bodies.

JUDGMENT :

Amit Rawal, J.

This order shall dispose of two writ appeals preferred against W.P.(C) Nos. 21273 of 2024 and 1728 of 2024, which were disposed of by the common judgment dated 9.8.2024.

2. In the first case (WP(C) No.21273 of 2024), the challenge laid by the writ petitioners–appellants to the order dated 2.2.2024 of Government, rejecting the statutory appeal preferred under Section 57 of the Municipality Act, has been upheld. In the other case (WP(C) No.1728 of 2024), the writ petition filed by the Thrissur Corporation against the order of the Ombudsman dated 9.11.2023 (Ext.P5) has been allowed.

3. The brief facts, which are relevant for the adjudication of the controversy are enumerated herein below :

The Bini Tourist Home, situated in the heart of the Thrissur, belongs to the Municipal Corporation and from 1990 still September 2020 one Smt. Omana Asokan was the licensee. Upon surrender of the building by the said licensee, various attempts were made to public auction, conducted in October and November 2020, February 2021, November 2021, March 2021 and August 2022. In few cases, even the selected tenderers failed to abide the terms of the tender and did not pay the security deposit. In order to lease out the premises, tenders were invited for a public auction on 16.9.2022 enabling to run the Tourist Home. Five (5) persons, including Smt.Omana Asokan submitted the tenders whereas her tender was the lowest and one Sri.Janeesh P.S offered a highest amount of Rs.7,25,000/- and was accordingly, called upon for negotiation and monthly fee was thereafter enhanced to Rs.7,50,000/- with a corresponding increase stipulated for every three years.

4. Despite the Council having decided to grant the licence, the said decision was challenged in W.P.(C) No. 21273 of 2024, out of which Intra-Court Appeal No. 1342 of 2024 was filed by one Sri Vinod Pollanchery and other councillors. The said successful licensee approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No. 3668 of 2023, wherein his grievance was redressed on the basis of the decisions of the Council dated 10.4.2023 and 14.7.2023, taken pursuant to the directions issued in the aforementioned writ petition.

5. The sum and substance in the writ petition bearing No.21273 of 2024 was whether the decision of the Municipal Corporation dated 30.1.2023 could be interfered in the writ jurisdiction or not. The procedure of the tender is prescribed under Section 215 (2)(c) of the MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ACT . Concededly, the Municipal Corporation, is the owner of the property, therefore have the right and liberty to use one of the two modes available under the provisions.

6. The minutes of the said decision which was attached as Ext.P7 was challenged in a writ petition filed by one Sri.Mukesh K.B bearing No.27414 of 2023, who is also a Councillor and claims to have dissented at the meeting held on 30.1.2023, alleging that out of fifty four (54) Municipal Councillors, thirty (30) out of them had dissented from the resolution. The said resolution dealt with the approval granted by the Mayor and in anticipation of the approval by the Council, was ratified and the duty of collecting the amount due from the licensee in execution was entrusted to the Secretary. The reading of the minutes of the aforementioned meetings reveals that a few of the elected Councilors refused to approve the proceedings and attempted to disrupt the same, yet the resolution was passed by the Mayor.

7. Section 57 of the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994 empowers any aggrieved persons, dissatisfied with the resol