JUDGMENT : The petitioner says that he is in possession of a ‘Kiosk’ owned by the Greater Cochin Development Authority (GCDA); and that it was allotted to him for a period of one year in the year 2014, taking note of the physical condition and lack of any other source of livelihood. 2. The petitioner asserts that, even though the licence granted expired in the year 2015, he has been continuing to operate the ‘Kiosk’, but without being granted a renewed licence; and therefore, that he has preferred Ext.P9 representation before the 2nd respondent. He alleges that this has not been considered until now and prays that same be directed to be taken up by the 2nd respondent and disposed of; and that, until such time, he be allowed to continue to conduct the ‘Kiosk’ as per Ext.P6, the earlier order of allotment. 3. Sri. R. Divakaran – learned counsel for the petitioner, explained that, apart from the fact that his client is a physically handicapped person, he also belongs to a scheduled caste; and therefore, that his entitlement to continue the ‘Kiosk’ is constitutionally protected. He thus reiteratingly prayed that the reliefs sought for in this writ petition be granted. 4. Sri. M.K. Thankappan – learned Standing Counsel appearing for the GCDA, on the other hand, submitted that the petitioner cannot continue to occupy the ‘Kiosk’ indefinitely and ad infinitum, merely because of his physical inability or being part of a particular community. He submitted that the GCDA intends to auction the ‘Kiosk’ as per law and as required by the mandate of the Statutory Scheme; and that petitioner can take part in the same, pursuant to which he can be granted the licence, if he is found eligible. He added that the petitioner’s physical condition; that the factum of his belonging to the Scheduled Caste community and that he had been operating the ‘Kiosk’ for a long period of time will be kept in mind by the Authority of the GCDA, while finally allotting it. 5. I am without doubt that the afore submissions of Sri. M.K. Thankappan would allay the apprehensions of the petitioner. 6. As rightly argued by Sri. M.K. Thakappan, no person can – whatever be his credentials or attributes -seek to remain in possession of a commercial enterprise under the GCDA ad infinitum. 5. I am without doubt that the afore submissions of Sri. M.K. Thankappan would allay the apprehensions of the petitioner. 6. As rightly argued by Sri. M.K. Thakappan, no person can – whatever be his credentials or attributes -seek to remain in possession of a commercial enterprise under the GCDA ad infinitum. The said Authority is expected to conduct its affairs as per law and to abide by tendering processes with respect to the allotment of its stalls and ‘Kiosks’. In the afore circumstances, I order this writ petition in the following manner : (a) I leave liberty to the 2nd respondent to conduct necessary tendering processes with respect to the ‘Kiosk’ in question, in which the petitioner will also be allowed to participate, subject to all other requirements in law being satisfied. (b) I, however, clarify that, until such time as the tendering processes are over and the new agreement finalized, the petitioner will be allowed to continue to operate the ‘Kiosk’ on the same terms as he is presently doing. (c) I also direct the competent Authority of the GCDA to afford all empathy and necessary preference to the petitioner, as is legally available, taking note of his condition and the fact that he has been continuing the ‘Kiosk’ for the last several years, during the tendering processes.