Petitioners have the right to a fair hearing before any action by municipal authorities, ensuring compliance with procedural mandates.

JUDGMENT

This writ petition is filed with following prayers:

i. To issue a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ order or direction to call for entire records leading to Exhibit P3 and quash the same.

ii. To issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ order or direction directing the 2nd respondent to consider Exhibit P7 representation and pass orders.

iii. To issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ order or direction directing the respondents 1 to 4 not to take further action till the passing of orders on Exhibit P7 representation of the petitioner.

iv. production of English translations of documents in vernacular, may kindly be dispensed with for the time being;

v. To grant such other reliefs that may be prayed for from time to time and such other and further reliefs as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper.

(SIC)

2. Petitioner is operating a bunk shop in front of Narmeswaram Mahadeva Temple, Thiruvananthapuram which is under the 5^th respondent Travancore Devaswom Board is the submission. The 5^th respondent Tranvancore Devaswom Board invited tender for conducting flower shop in Narmeswaram Mahadeva Temple. The petitioner was the bidder in the said tender and the same was allotted to her by the Board as per the tender proceedings dated 14.10.2024 is the submission. According to the petitioner, the said bunk shop is situated by touching the compound wall and nearby tree of the temple and also without encroaching the foot path. It is also the case of the petitioner that the said bunk shop is not causing any hindrance to the movements of the public, as evident by Ext.P2 photographs. Subsequently the 4^th respondent issued Ext.P3 notice to remove the bunk shop. The case of the petitioner is that Ext.P3 is issued without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and in violation of the procedure contemplated under Section 376 (3) of the Kerala Municipality Act . Hence this writ petition

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the Municipality. I also heard the learned Standing Counsel for the Travancore Devaswom Board.

4. The Standing Counsel takes me through paragraph 9 of the statement filed by the 2nd respondent. The Standing Counsel submitted that the petitioner was granted an opportunity of hearing before the proceedings was finalised. It is also submitted that, all the procedures in accordance with the Kerala Municipality Act are complied by the Corporation.

5. The petitioner is only a small bunk shop owner. This Court perused Ext.P2 photographs. I do not want to make any observation on merit. I am of the considered opinion that one more opportunity should be given to the petitioner to substantiate her case. The petitioner already submitted Exts.P4 and P7 before the 2^nd respondent. There can be a direction to consider the same and till then, the interim order can be continued.

Therefore, this Writ Petition is disposed of in the following manner:

1. The 2^nd respondent is directed to consider Exts.P4 and P7, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

2. Till then, further proceedings based on Ext.P3 shall be kept in abeyance.

sd/-