JUDGMENT : ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A., J. 1. The 1 st petitioner is the unit of the District Committee of an association of persons registered under the provisions of the Travancore-Cochin Literary, Scientific and Charitable Societies Registration Act, 1955 . The 2 nd petitioner is the member of the 1 st petitioner. There are about 37 members in the unit. The members of the 1 st petitioner unit are the licensees of the shop rooms situated in FACT Township, owned and managed by Ms. Fertilizers and Chemicals Travancore Ltd (FACT), a Public Sector Company. The members of the 1 st petitioner are running various kinds of businesses in the shop rooms. The 2 nd respondent is the Chairman and Managing Director of the said Public Sector Company and the 3 rd respondent herein is its Estate Officer. The dispute involved in this writ petition pertains to the tender notification published by the 2nd respondent as evidenced by Ext.P3, inviting tenders for allotting the stalls and shop rooms for running different businesses, which are 83 in number. 2. According to the petitioners, the members of the 1 st petitioner are the occupiers of the stalls/shop rooms for years together. According to them, present occupiers of the said building were the permanent settlers in the properties, which were specifically acquired for the purpose of the establishment of the FACT. When the FACT was set up, the company took possession of the aforementioned land on the assurance of rehabilitation of the said persons. It is further averred by the petitioners that, in the year 1960, a major fire occurred in the area and the shop rooms and stalls already functioning were destroyed. The management of the FACT, in order to rehabilitate the occupiers of the shop rooms and stalls, have constructed the shopping complex and predecessors in interest of the present occupiers were put in possession of the said shop rooms on the strength of license agreements with an intention to give them perpetual possession. Ext.P2 was produced as one of the documents to substantiate the terms and conditions of the possession which was issued in favor of the 2 nd petitioner. 3. According to them, at present the occupiers of the said building are paying the rent at the rate of Rs.8 per Sq.Ft. Ext.P2 was produced as one of the documents to substantiate the terms and conditions of the possession which was issued in favor of the 2 nd petitioner. 3. According to them, at present the occupiers of the said building are paying the rent at the rate of Rs.8 per Sq.Ft. While so, Ext.P3 was published by the 3 rd respondent on 22.09.2025 inviting tenders for the stalls and shop rooms occupied by the petitioners. According to the petitioner, Ext.P3 specifies for minimum license fee with respect to each shop room and as per Clause 4 of Ext.P3, the existing occupiers of the shop rooms/stalls will have to participate in the tender if they intend to continue the occupation of the shop rooms. As per Clause 4, the present occupiers are granted an opportunity to match with the highest bid quoted, in case other persons have quoted higher rates. Being aggrieved by Ext.P3, the present occupiers of the shop rooms have submitted representation before the 1 st and 2 nd respondents as evidenced by Ext.P4. Since the same did not evoke any response, the petitioners have approached this Court with this writ petitioner seeking the following reliefs: “i. To issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction directing the 1st respondent to issue necessary orders to the 2nd respondents to keep in abeyance the proceedings pursuant to Exhibit P3 pending consideration of Exhibit P4. ii. To declare that the members of the 1st petitioner in the FACT Township are entitled to continue in occupation of their respective shop rooms without participating in the tender. iii. To declare that the 2nd respondent is not entitled to invite tenders with respect to the functioning shops as provided in Exhibit P2 Estate Manual iv. To direct the 2nd respondent to consider and pass orders on Exhibit P4. v. To issue such other writ, order or direction as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.” 4. A detailed counter affidavit has been submitted on behalf of the 2 nd and 3 rd respondents, wherein, the maintainability of the writ petition is seriously challenged on various grounds. Firstly, it was contended that, the court fee paid by the petitioners while filing the writ petition is inadequate. A detailed counter affidavit has been submitted on behalf of the 2 nd and 3 rd respondents, wherein, the maintainability of the writ petition is seriously challenged on various grounds. Firstly, it was contended that, the court fee paid by the petitioners while filing the writ petition is inadequate. This submission is made in view of the fact that, since the writ petition is filed for the individual benefits of the members of the 1 st petitioner association, the court fee ought to have paid for all the members of the said association, whereas, at present only Rs.1,000/- is paid as court fee for the two writ petitions. Secondly, locus standi of the petitioners is also seriously disputed. In the counter affidavit, subsequent developments in the matter of auction process conducted by the 2 nd and 3 rd respondents in compliance of the directions issued by this Court in the interim order dated 21.10.2025 was also highlighted. The said developments include the fact that, out of 37 beneficiaries, the members of 1st petitioner association, 36 persons, have participated in the tender process, in which 9 persons became H1 and thus, are entitled to get continuation of their occupation. It was further pointed out that, out of total participants among the members of the 1 st petitioner, 12 persons became eligible on quoting the minimum rates specified in clause 3 of Ext.P3, out of which, 9 persons became H1. With regard to the 3 persons out of 12, options were extended to match the H1 rate. In the said process, one person, did not make any option by pointing out that, he is unable to exercise any of the options due to the pendancy of this writ petition and remaining persons have taken the option, not to match the price. Thus, according to the respondents, those three persons are not eligible to continue in possession of the respective shop rooms. It was further averred that, out of the total 38 rooms, only for 17 rooms, there were bidders and for remaining 21 rooms, re-tendering is necessary. 5. Apart from the above, on merits also, serious challenge has been raised by the 2 nd and 3 rd respondents as to the entertainability of this writ petition. Perpetual right to be in possession of the shop rooms claimed by the petitioners was specifically denied. 5. Apart from the above, on merits also, serious challenge has been raised by the 2 nd and 3 rd respondents as to the entertainability of this writ petition. Perpetual right to be in possession of the shop rooms claimed by the petitioners was specifically denied. Reliance placed on Ext.P2 Estate Manual by the petitioners, were also seriously disputed by the 2 nd and 3 rd respondents by highlighting that, the said document only indicate the functions of the 3 rd respondent Estate O matter of management of the estates of the FACT and under no circumstances, the said document can have any impact on the rights available to the FACT as the owner of the properties, which are subject matter of the dispute. In the counter affidavit, respondents have also raised the question of non-joinder of necessary parties, as the Company, namely, the FACT, xc has not been impleaded as a party, despite the fact that, even going by the averments in the writ petition, properties are owned by the said Company. A detailed reply affidavit was submitted by the petitioners in response to the aforesaid counter affidavit, by explaining the circumstances under which, the two persons out of the total thirty seven occupiers did not participate. Apart from the above, with regard to the non-implement of the company, petitioner reiterated the averments contained in paragraph 2 of the writ petition. 6. Earlier when the writ petition came up for consideration on 21.10.2025, an interim order was passed by this Court, which reads as follows:- “After hearing the matter for sometime, I am of the view that, for effective resolution of the issue involved in this case, it is only proper to permit the tender process based on Ext.P3 to take place. However, it is clarified that, finalization of the allotment of the rooms already occupied by the members of the 1st petitioner, which comes to 37 rooms, the details of which shall be furnished by the 1st petitioner, shall be made only after obtaining orders from this Court. The members of the 1st petitioner can participate in the auction without prejudice to their contentions raised in this writ petition. Post on 28.10.2025.” 7. The members of the 1st petitioner can participate in the auction without prejudice to their contentions raised in this writ petition. Post on 28.10.2025.” 7. In compliance of the said direction, an auction was conducted, and the details of the outcome of the said auction are already highlighted in the counter affidavit filed by the respondents 2 and 3, which are already dealt with in the above paragraph. It was in these factual background, the issues raised in this writ petition are to be considered. 8. Heard Smt.C.G.Preetha, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri. Rohit R. Kartha, the learned counsel appearing for the 1 st respondent and Sri. Paulose C. Abraham, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 2 and 3. 9. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner reiterated the contentions raised in the writ petition mainly basing on the perpetual right of the petitioners to continue in occupation of the said shop rooms/stalls. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 2 and 3 seriously opposed the said contention, even while raising the question of maintainability of the writ petition, by highlighting the contentions raised in the counter affidavit. 10. Firstly, when coming to the question of maintainability of this writ petition, one of the main contentions raised by the respondents is with regard to the non payment of adequate court fee. In this regard, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, they are prepared to pay the additional Court fee payable. It is discernible from the records that, the writ petition is submitted for the benefit of 37 individuals. The records would indicate that, even if this writ petition is allowed, and the reliefs, as prayed for, is granted, the number of beneficiaries of the same cannot go beyond 37. This is particularly because, dispute involved in this writ petition is pertaining to allotment of 37 rooms to the present occupiers. Therefore, the question of getting any benefit to any other members does not arise in this case. Even if all these 37 persons are approaching this Court, either separately or jointly, the maximum Court fee payable should be only at the rate individually payable by them. Therefore, I am of the view that, the petitioners will have to pay the court fee for 37 persons, which would mean that court fee for additional 35 persons have to be made. Therefore, I am of the view that, the petitioners will have to pay the court fee for 37 persons, which would mean that court fee for additional 35 persons have to be made. Therefore, the petitioners are granted an opportunity to make the payment within a period one month from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. 11. When it comes to the other questions, one serious contention raised by the learned counsel for the respondents 2 and 3 is the non-joinder of necessary parties, i.e., non-impleadment of The Fertilizers and Chemicals Travancore Limited (FACT) as a party to the proceedings. The learned counsel for the 2 nd and 3 rd respondents speci that, as far as the reliefs sought by the petitioners in this writ petition are concerned, those are in relation to the properties owned by the FACT, and touching upon the rights of the said establishment to deal with the said property. Therefore, the impleadment of 2 nd and 3 rd respondent, who are only the o of the said establishment is not adequate. Even though I find merits in the said submission, I am of the view that, on that reason alone, this writ petition need not be rejected, as this writ petition has already been admitted by this Court, interim order passed and the parties were given rights to raise all their pleadings. Therefore, this Court is intending to proceed with the matter to be determined on merits. This is particularly because the proceedings are effectively defended by the 2nd and 3rd respondents and hence no prejudice is caused to the establishment in this regard. 12. When it comes to the merits of the contentions, the challenge is raised mainly on the ground that, the members of the 1 st petitioner, the occupiers of shop rooms/stalls owned by the FACT, are entitled to continue their possession, based on a perpetual right obtained by them. To support the claim of such perpetual right, it is specifically averred that, all the occupiers are successor in interest of the persons, whose properties were acquired for the purpose of establishing the FACT. Their specific case is that, such acquisition was made on a specific understanding that, the persons whose properties were so acquired, would be rehabilitated. To support the claim of such perpetual right, it is specifically averred that, all the occupiers are successor in interest of the persons, whose properties were acquired for the purpose of establishing the FACT. Their specific case is that, such acquisition was made on a specific understanding that, the persons whose properties were so acquired, would be rehabilitated. Besides, the petitioners are also referring to a fire accident claimed to have occurred in the year 1960 in which, the existing buildings and stalls were completely destroyed, and consequently, the management of FACT have decided a construct a shopping complex in order to accommodate all the occupants. It was also claimed that, such occupancy was provided to those persons with a perpetual right. However, the crucial aspect to be noticed is that, even though these aspects are specifically pleaded in the writ petition, no documents to substantiate the same are forthcoming. 13. On the other hand, the respondents 2 and 3, in their counter affidavit specifically denied this claim by pointing out that, as far as the properties on which the company was established are concerned, it was acquired by the Government and handed over the same to the company. None of the documents by which the properties were handed over to the FACT, contain any conditions of rehabilitation of any persons. Therefore, the claims in this regard are specifically denied by the respondents. 14. Thus, since such claim is specifically denied by the respondents, the contentions raised by the petitioner in this regard, cannot be accepted in the absence of any documents to substantiate the same. Moreover, as far as the perpetual right, as claimed by the petitioners are concerned, that must be something borne out from the records, since it is something that curtails the proprietary rights over the property, which admittedly vest with the company. It is also noted in this regard that, the only document produced by the petitioners to substantiate the terms and conditions between the parties in relation to the permission granted to them to occupy the shop rooms/stalls is Ext.P1, which is issued in favour of the 2 nd respondent. On going through Ext.P1, which is seen to have executed on 11.05.2021, a specific tenure is contemplated for occupying the building/shop room, which is for the period from 01.09.2015 to 31.08.2023. On going through Ext.P1, which is seen to have executed on 11.05.2021, a specific tenure is contemplated for occupying the building/shop room, which is for the period from 01.09.2015 to 31.08.2023. Thus, it is evident that, Ext.P1 was intended to be in operation only for a specified period and not perpetually. 15. Moreover, clause 17 of Ext.P1, clearly specifies that, the licensor is entitled to terminate the license after giving 15 days notice. Clause 18 further contemplates that, within 7 days of termination of the license, in either case, the licensee shall remove his/her articles from the scheduled building without any demur. It is further provided that the licensee shall not be entitled to claim any compensation in the event of any such termination of the license. Clause 30 of the same contemplates that, during the tenure of license, if the licensee expires, the license will automatically stand canceled. It is also specified that the license is not inheritable and transferable under any circumstances. 16. Thus, all these clauses referred to above, give a clear indication in relation to the extent of the right conferred as per the same, which is against the concept of perpetual right, as claimed by the petitioners. Since the only document produced before this Court, to substantiate the terms and conditions is Ext.P1 and it is specifically averred in the writ petition that, the similar license agreements are executed in respect of other occupiers of other shop rooms, I am of the view that, in respect of all the other persons, the conclusion can only be same, which is to the effect that, no perpetual rights are seen created in favour of such persons. Therefore, I am not inclined to accept the contentions raised by the petitioners in this regard. 17. Now the learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that, all the occupiers are continuing in possession of the respective shop rooms/stalls for years together and all of them are depending upon their livelihood from the income derived from the said shop rooms/stalls. The learned counsel also highlighted the fact that, as of now, they are paying rent @ Rs.8/- per sq. ft and they are prepared to enhance 100% of the present rate, whereas, the rates now quoted in Ext.P3 is amount to 300%. The learned counsel also highlighted the fact that, as of now, they are paying rent @ Rs.8/- per sq. ft and they are prepared to enhance 100% of the present rate, whereas, the rates now quoted in Ext.P3 is amount to 300%. The difficulties now being faced by the occupiers of the said shop room/stalls on account of the reduced number of employees in the FACT and the existence of heavy competition due to the other establishments in the nearby locality are also highlighted to show that, the rate of minimum rent fixed in Ext.P3 is not at all feasible, and it may not be possible for the present occupiers to match the said rate. 18. However, I am of the view that, the said question cannot be considered in a writ jurisdiction. Moreover, admittedly the shop rooms/stalls are belonging to the company and the occupiers are continuing in possession based on the permission/license granted to them by the company. As observed above, the terms and conditions are governed by Ext.P1 and similar license deeds executed between the parties. The clauses contained therein, include specific understanding between the parties as to the rates, termination and other matters incidental thereto. Therefore, once the said document is found to be governing the field, the petitioner cannot claim any different rights, than covered as per the said document. 19. As mentioned above, the said document include the specified tenure for each agreement, and the right of the company to get possession of the same, after the tenure is over. Since there is nothing on record to curtail the right of the company to publish a notification in the nature of Ext.P3, inviting tender, the petitioners/occupiers of the shop rooms/stalls cannot insist that, they should be permitted to continue the occupation thereon, as per the rent specified by them. 20. When coming to the course adopted by the company, while issuing Ext.P3 notification for tender, one crucial aspect to be noticed is that, a special accommodation has been provided to all the present occupiers, by virtue of clause 4 thereof. Although a minimum rate has been prescribed for the participants, to be eligible for allotment, clause 4 thereof specifically provides that, the present occupiers, upon becoming eligible, would get an opportunity to match the rate, even if H1 happen to be a 3 rd person. Although a minimum rate has been prescribed for the participants, to be eligible for allotment, clause 4 thereof specifically provides that, the present occupiers, upon becoming eligible, would get an opportunity to match the rate, even if H1 happen to be a 3 rd person. It is evident from the documents produced along with the counter affidavit that, in respect of all occupiers who became eligible on quoting the minimum rates, prescribed in Ext.P3, such an option has been extended. Thus, the interest of the persons with long occupation was specifically taken care of, in the present notification. 21. Besides, as pointed out by the learned counsel for the 2 nd and 3 rd respondents, clause 9 of Ext.P3 contemplates that, existing shop owners are exempted from remitting EMD for participating in the tender for the said shop rooms/stalls. Thus, in the light of the aforesaid clauses a privilege is given to the present occupiers, and hence, under no circumstances it can be held that, the issuance of Ext.P3 is infringing any rights of the petitioners/occupiers of the said building. This is particularly because, this Court has already held that, the company has every right to deal with its property. 22. In such circumstances, the reliefs sought in this writ petition cannot be granted. However, even while considering the said aspect, one crucial aspect to be noticed is that, out of 38 shop rooms/stalls, only for 17 shop rooms/stalls, there are qualified bidders. Out of the said 17, 9 persons who were H1, are the present occupiers and they are entitled to continue the possession. With regard to the 3 occupiers, who became eligible on quoting the minimum price, even though an option to match H1 was extended, that was not availed, as evidenced by Exts.R2(I) to R2(K). However, I am of the view that, taking note of the fact that, they were continuing in possession for a considerably long period and also that, they are qualified for the tenders, one more opportunity to match the H1 rate can be granted. 24. With regard to the 21 shop rooms for which there were no eligible bidders, the respondents 2 and 3 may have to re- tender the same, if they desire to do so. 24. With regard to the 21 shop rooms for which there were no eligible bidders, the respondents 2 and 3 may have to re- tender the same, if they desire to do so. Therefore, the present occupiers can continue until the new tender process is finalized and in case any re-tender is initiated, it shall be open to the present occupiers to participate in the same. In such circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of, in terms of the above findings and observations. It is clarified that, the persons who are covered by Exts.R2(I) to R2(K) will have to submit their options within a period of one week from date of receipt of copy of this judgment, if they want to opt for matching of the higher rates quoted. All the above directions would became enforceable only if the petitioner are remitting the deficit court fees within the time specified above. As soon as the deficit court fee is paid by the petitioner, an intimation shall be given to the 2 nd and 3 rd respondents.