Due process must be followed in eviction proceedings to ensure fair opportunity for affected parties.

JUDGMENT

This writ petition is filed with the following prayers:

“a) a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ order or direction and quash exhibit P5 Eviction Notice issued by Clean City Manager, Taliparamba Municipality.

b) Appropriate directions to set aside and quash the Eviction Notice in exhibit P5.

c) Such other reliefs as this Hon’ble Court deems fit to grant in the nature of this case.

d) To dispense with producing English translation of documents in vernacular languages. ”[SIC]

2. The petitioners along with Late Mahamood Hamsa are the partners of B M Vegetable shop in Building No. TMC/16/379, located at Thaliparamba town, Kannur Dist is the submission. Mahamood Hamsa passed away on 02-11-2019. Following that, the firm was re-registered and the remaining partners carried on with the business is the submission. The name of the departed partner, however, remained in the records because of a clerical/technical error is the further submission. Earlier, the petitioners applied for new/renewal of License and remitted fees, in the absence of the departed partner to the respondent-Municipality is the submission. It is also the case of the petitioners that the license has been operative or was in force till 31.03.2025. After the petitioner applied for the renewal of the license for the financial year 2025-2026, the Municipality issued a notice rejecting the renewal application stating that the remaining partners misrepresented about the departed partner to the Municipality and thus renewed license. The said rejection was based on a request submitted by the daughter of the departed partner is the submission. According to the petitioners they are depending upon the vegetable shop for their livelihood. The petitioners approached this Court by filing a writ petition. This court disposed that writ petition as per Ext. P4 directing the Municipality to afford the petitioners an opportunity of being heard before arriving at a final conclusion. It is the case of the petitioners that, contrary to this mandate, the Secretary of the Municipality along with the 3^rd respondent, Clean City Manager, proceeded to take a unilateral decision without issuing any prior notice or affording the petitioners such opportunity. Violating the direction of this Court, the respondent evicted the petitioners from the shop, is the submission. The eviction notice was handed over only at the time of eviction, thereby rendering the entire process arbitrary, is the submission. Hence this Writ Petition (Civil).

3. Heard the Counsel for the petitioners and Standing Counsel appearing for the Municipality. The Counsel for the petitioners reiterated the contentions raised in this writ petition. The Standing Counsel submitted that the petitioners did not submit any reply within one week as directed by this Court. Since the petitioners did not submit any reply within the time granted by this Court, the impugned order was passed. It is also submitted that, the order is executed and the petitioners are already evicted.

4. I do not want to make any observation about the actions of the Municipality. According to the petitioners, they were not heard.

5. Since the petitioners were already evicted, there is no purpose in quashing Ext. P5. The petitioners can be allowed to file a representation before the Municipality narrating the subsequent event and they can file a proper application for License/Renewal and if such an application is filed, the Municipality will consider the same in accordance with law forthwith.

With the above observation, the writ petition is disposed of.

Sd/-