The Greater Cochin Development Authority’s notices asking persons running business establishments at the commercial complex in the Jawaharlal Nehru International Stadium to close down their shops till the FIFA Under17 Football World Cup matches are over have been challenged in the Kerala High Court.
When the petition against the notice came up for hearing, the High Court asked the State government and the Greater Cochin Development Authority (GCDA) to consider the plight of the tenants and to find out a solution to the issue.
The court adjourned the petition to September 16 for further hearing .
In the petition, V. Ramachandran Nair and 43 others, who have taken the spaces at the commercial complex for lease, pointed out that the petitioners were conducting various businesses ranging from financial services to tour and taxi operations. If their businesses were disrupted, they would be forced to pay liquidated and other damages to their customers.
They said the GCDA’s notices asking them to close down their business activities from September 15 to October 25 came as a bolt from the blue. It was part of the security arrangements being made for the foreign teams participating in the matches as per the request of the Federation Internationale de Football Association (FIFA). Though the matches begin only in October, the petitioners’ business establishments would have to be closed down for a month and a half, putting them in great peril.
The petitioners contended that the notices were against the specific clause in the lease deed singed between the GCDA and the petitioners that the petitioners “shall peacefully hold and enjoy the premise during the lease period without any interruption by the authority or any person rightfully claiming under or in trust for the authority.” It was not for the first time that the stadium was hosting an international event, they said. Matches involving foreign teams had been held earlier as well. In fact, security arrangements could be made without the closure of the business establishments. “The demand of the GCDA was really a threat to our livelihood,” said the petitioners. Therefore, they sought to quash the notices of the GCDA.
