WP(C)/39970/2017 of JAYAKRISHNAN Vs THE KERALA STAE CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPORATION LTD on 29 December 2017

J U D G M E N T

Since the issues involved in both the writ petitions are common, I am disposing of these writ petitions together by thiscommon judgment.

2. The petitioner claims to be the owner of the buildingbearing No.3/118 in Sreekrishnapuram Panchayath in OttapalamTaluk, Palakkad District. According to him, he had entered intoan agreement with the 1[st] respondent-Kerala State Civil SuppliesCorporation Ltd. for lease of his shop room to them forcommencing the SUPPLYCO super market. According to thepetitioner, even though the Civil Supplies Corporation had inprinciple agreed to take on lease his building, they had resiledfrom the same and that they are now taking steps to obtain thebuilding owned by another person. According to the petitioner,the SUPPLYCO should be directed to take on lease his buildingbecause he is offering a better rent with respect to the lease.

3. The learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the SUPPLYCO submits that this is a commercial decision taken bythe 1[st] respondent and the petitioner is not justified inapproaching this Court by filing writ petitions of this naturealmost as if the Corporation is obligated in law to accept hislease. According to the learned Standing Counsel, thepetitioner's attitude is completely impermissible and he says thatdecisions have been taken, with respect to the lease of thebuilding for the SUPPLYCO shop room, as per the commercialassessments and the requirements, taking into account all theother relevant factors involved.

4. I have considered the submissions made on behalf of the parties as above and I am of the view that what has beenprojected in these writ petitions by the petitioner is essentially acommercial transaction into which this Court cannot interfere ordelve into while acting under writ jurisdiction. The petitioner'sassertion is that his terms are better than that has offered byother persons.

5. These are essentially matters which are within the decision making capacity of the 1[st] respondent and this Court willnot be justified in interfering with the same in any manner.

However, since I see that the petitioner has already made Ext.P3representation before the Secretary of the 1[st] respondent-Corporation, I deem it proper to direct the Secretary to considerthe same also before taking any final decision on the building tobe taken on lease by them. I make it clear that this order hasnot been issued as a matter of right to the petitioner and I do notthink that the petitioner can claim any vested right to have hisbuilding taken on lease. I have issued this order only in thefairness of things so that the petitioner's version can also beconsidered by the Secretary while taking a final decision.

6. Learned Government Pleader at this point informs that in fact the building other than of the petitioner had already beenidentified and got ready for the shop room and he says that stepshave been taken to inaugurate the same on 01.01.2018.

If this is true, the Secretary of the Corporation will beentitled to inform the petitioner accordingly by a speaking orderin terms of this judgment.

These writ petitions are disposed of as above.

DEVAN RAMACHANDRANJUDGE