The petitioners’ sister was the lessee of shop No. 2 Dehlwala Market belonging to the Dehlwala – Mt. Lavlnla Municipal Council. The lessee was carrying on a grocery business In the premises. As the lessee was old and
feeble, the p e titio n er a ssiste d h er to continue w ith the b u sin ess. T he 5 th re sp o n d e n t the M ayor o f the C ouncil is said to have decided to b u ild a new sh o p p in g area; a n d after the co n stru ctio n of new stalls on one side, a n u m b e r o f sh o p k e ep ers Including the p etitioner w ere called u p o n to sh ift
their b u sin e ss “tem p o rarily ” to new p re m ise s and to dem olish the existing stalls w here they w ere carry in g on b u sin ess. A n u m b e r of sh o p k e ep ers Including the p etitio n er a n d h e r siste r w ere n o t agreeable to th is re q u e st. Instead, the p etitio n er’s siste r an d four o th e rs filed a w rit application In
the C o u rt of A ppeal; a n d on 17.3.98 the c o u rt Issued an ex p a rte stay o rd e r re stra in in g the 5 th re sp o n d e n t an d the 6th re sp o n d e n t (M unicipal E ngineer) from ejecting th e five p e titio n e rs in th a t case. E ach o f the p etitio n ers o b tain ed copies of th a t O rd er w hich w as also notified to the 5 th a n d 6 th re sp o n d e n ts by th e R egistrar, C ourt of A ppeal by ex p ress telegram on 17.3.98. It w as how ever n o t clear w hether the telegram reached D ehlw ala on th e 17th, 18th o r 19th.
hold that the fundam ental rights of the Petitioner under Articles 11, 13(1) and 13(2) have been violated by the 1st and
5 th R esp on d en ts, and award her a su m of Rs. 6 0 ,0 0 0 as com pensation and costs. There is no reason why the State or the Municipal Council should be ordered to pay this sum . I direct the 1st Respondent personally to pay a sum of Rs. 3 0 ,0 0 0 and the 5 th R espondent personally to pay a sum of Rs. 30,000,
