JUDGMENT : Devan Ramachandran, J. 1. The appellant impugns the interim order of a learned Judge of this Court dated 10.04.2025, primarily citing one apprehension, namely, that the now constructed temporary Market Complex does not have proper ventilation and is surrounded by ‘legacy waste’ which cause pungent smell and insalubrious conditions. 2. Sri. C. Unnikrishnan - learned counsel for the appellant, submitted that the impugned order is based on a statement - filed by the 2 nd respondent, namely the Secretary of the Thiruvananthapuram Corporation, but that the contents of the same are contrary to truth. He pointed out that there is no air-conditioning in the new building; and that the facilities therein are neither better nor even satisfactory in comparison to the old Market building and hence that the refusal to renew the earlier interim order passed by this Court on 08.04.2025 is illegal and unlawful. 3. We see that the controversy in this case is only as to whether the members of the appellant - Association can be forced to take up the alternate accommodation in the new temporary building, after evicting themselves from the old one. 4. As we have seen above, the primary cause projected by the appellant is that the new temporary building is not ready to receive or accommodate the shops, as has now been asserted. 5. Sri. Suman Chakravarthy - learned Standing Counsel for the Thiruvananthapuram Corporation, admitted that there is some amount of ‘legacy waste’ in the property; but added that this cannot be cited as a ground by the members of the appellant to resist eviction from the old complex because both the said buildings are within the same compound. He added that the waste itself has been created by people like the members of the appellant - Association, but that the Corporation is now trying their best - through bio-mining and other innovative mechanisms - to clear it off. He assured this Court that every step will be taken by the Corporation to make the premises worthy of a market; but reiteratingly asserted that the attempt of the appellant is to take advantage of the wrongs of their own members and to refuse to move into the new temporary building, thus creating a stalemate. 6. Sri. Jaju Babu, learned Senior Counsel, instructed by Sri. 6. Sri. Jaju Babu, learned Senior Counsel, instructed by Sri. Brijesh Mohan - appearing for the 6 th respondent, submitted that the new temporary building has been constructed providing every necessary facility; but conceded that there is no air conditioning as of now. He explained that this building was constructed so as to reconstruct the old market to modern standards; and that the refusal of the members of the appellant to shift from there would frustrate such, leading to irreparable prejudice, since it is a time-bound program. 7. The above dialectical positions being recorded, there can be little doubt that there is great public interest involved in this case. The gravamen is not merely as projected by the appellant - namely whether they can be forced to shift themselves into the temporary building awaiting the reconstruction of the old one; but if such construction aligns with the requirements and interests of the citizens. 8. It is conceded by all sides that the old building requires reconstruction; for which, the existing vendors will have to shift themselves out into either the temporary building or somewhere else. 9. The only impediment for shifting to the new temporary building, now impelled by the appellant is that the premises of the said building are also unhygienic and are enveloped by a pungent smell. 10. There can certainly be no controversy that, whether it be the temporary building, the old building or the new one to be constructed, every market ought to be maintained conducive to public health and to the unexpendable civilized standards. 11. We cannot fathom how a market can have ‘legacy waste’, as has now been said to us, and why a mechanism like bio-mining has been required. Prima facie, this can only be because such waste has been allowed to accumulate for a long time, rendering it difficult to manage. 12. In such perspective, we are firm in our opinion that the project ought to be allowed to continue and that any interruption to the construction of the new building may be contrary to public interest. 13. That said, the apprehension of the appellant must also be taken into account in its proper perspective. If they are asked to shift into the new temporary building, then the Corporation must ensure that its premises are clean and commensurate to standards for vending food articles and for human consumption. 14. 13. That said, the apprehension of the appellant must also be taken into account in its proper perspective. If they are asked to shift into the new temporary building, then the Corporation must ensure that its premises are clean and commensurate to standards for vending food articles and for human consumption. 14. In such view, though we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned interim order, we clarify that, upon shifting of the vendors and during such process, into the new temporary building, every requisite measure and step shall be taken by the Corporation to ensure that all waste, including ‘legacy waste’ is removed and that there is no factor inhibiting public health or to cause danger to it, on a regular basis. This shall be confirmed by the Secretary of the Corporation through such methods/mechanisms as are statutorily permissible and a report to such effect shall be placed before the learned Single Bench, when the Writ Petition is heard and disposed of. 15. This Appeal is thus ordered.