When a statutory or administrative order requires interpretation regarding individual eligibility for rent waivers during a lockdown, the court may direct the affected party to seek administrative redressal through a formal representation rather than adjudicating the merits of the waiver in writ proceedings.

JUDGMENT

This writ petition is filed with following prayers:

i. Issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ, order and quash Exts. P6 and P7.

ii. Call for the records leading to Ext. P1 and set aside the same to the extent of not granting waiver of rent to medical shops which remained open during the lockdown period.

iii. To declare that the petitioner's establishment is entitled for waiver of rent for the month of April and May 2020.

iv. Direct the respondents not to claim any penal interest from the petitioner.

v. To grant such other further reliefs as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts circumstances of this case.

(SIC)

2. Petitioner is running a medical shop in Room No.25/186 of Municipal Shopping Complex owned by Cherpulassery Municipality. The petitioner approached this Court aggrieved by the rejection of his request for waiver of rent for 2 months i.e, April and May, during the lockdown period, while all other shop owners are granted exemption from remittance of rent for the said period is the submission. The petitioner is aggrieved by Exts.P6 and P7.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the Municipality. I also heard the learned Government Pleader.

4. A perusal of Ext.P6 would show that the reason for rejecting the request for waiver of licence fee is based on Ext.P1 Government Order. According to the Municipality, the medical shop of the petitioner was functioning during the lock down period and therefore, the petitioner is not entitled the benefit of Ext.P1. On the other hand, the petitioner submitted that even though the shop was open, there was no business and the petitioner is entitled exemption. When this writ petition came up for consideration on 11.02.2021, this Court passed the following order:

“Notice before admission to the respondents.

The learned Govt. Pleader takes notice for the 1^st respondent. Notice by speed post to the respondents

2 and 3. Post on 09.03.2021.

There will be an interim stay of recovery of amounts pursuant to Ext.P7 demand notice till then.”

5. Thereafter, when this writ petition came up for consideration on 09.03.2021, this Court extended the same until further orders. Even now, the interim order is in force.

6. I am of the considered opinion that this writ petition need not be retained here indefinitely. The Municipality relied on Ext.P1 Government Order. According to the petitioner, he is entitled some exemption even though Ext.P1 order is there. If that is the case, the petitioner can be allowed to submit a representation before the 1^st respondent and the 1^st respondent can be directed to consider the same, and till then, the interim order already passed can continue.

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

1. The petitioner is free to submit an objection to Exts.P6 and P7, before the 1^st respondent, within three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

2. If such an objection is received, the 1^st respondent will consider the same and pass appropriate orders in it, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within three months from the date of receipt of the objection.

3. Till final orders are passed, the interim order already passed by this Court staying the recovery of amount based on Ext.P7 shall continue.