Municipal policy decisions regarding demolition are generally upheld unless procedural due process is violated.

JUDGMENT

The above writ petition is filed with the following prayers :

(i) “Issue a writ of mandamus directing to call for the records relating to pass of Exhibit-P6 and to quash the same.

(ii) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to grant a one-year time to relocate their shops to another convenient place and also to ensure the re-allotment of the shop rooms for the petitioners after the construction of the shopping complex.

(iii) Issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent to permit the petitioners to continue their business in the Athani Shopping Complex without interference (iv) Grant such other and further reliefs as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.” [sic]

2. The petitioners are the occupants of shop rooms in Athani Market Complex, Thrissur. It is the case of the petitioners that their livelihood is based on the income received from the business in the shop rooms. According to the petitioners, the market complex was constructed only a decade ago and there is no structural disability to the market complex. However, the respondents without conducting any technical evaluation or granting an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, decided to demolish and reconstruct the complex.

Aggrieved by the same, this writ petition is filed.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the Standing Counsel appearing for the Municipality.

4. This Court perused Ext.P8 series. It is the notice issued by the Municipality to the petitioners to vacate the shop rooms within 15 days because the Municipality decided to reconstruct the complex. Notice was issued on 07.10.2025. When the Municipality authorities says that a shopping complex is to be renovated or is to be demolished for reconstruction, this Court cannot sit on an appeal with that decision. That is a policy decision of the Municipality. Therefore, I am not inclined to accept the contention of the petitioners that there is no structural disability to the buildings in the Shopping Complex. Thereafter, the counsel for the petitioners submitted that sufficient time may be given to vacate the premises because the income from the business conducted in the shop rooms is the livelihood of the petitioners. It seems that the petitioners are conducting small businesses in these shop rooms. All of a sudden, if the petitioners are directed to vacate the building, there will be difficulty to the petitioners. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, the petitioners can be given one year time on condition that the petitioners will file an affidavit.

5. This is seriously opposed by the Standing Counsel appearing for the Municipality. But a perusal of Ext.P8 series would not show that there is any structural disability to the building and the decision of the Municipality is only to demolish the shopping complex for constructing a new shopping complex. In such circumstances, one year time can be given on condition that the petitioners will file an affidavit attested by a notary to the effect that they will vacate from the shop rooms within one year, without any objection. The petitioners will continue to pay the rent to the Municipality in accordance with the law.

Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of, with the following directions:

1) The petitioners shall file an affidavit attested by a notary to the effect that they will vacate the shop rooms at Athani Shopping Complex within one year without any objection within three weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. In the affidavit, they should specifically state that they will pay t