IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 31808 of 2010(A)
1. P.BABU, S/O.PONNAN, AGED 49 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. KOLLAM CORPORATION, CORPORATION OFFICE,
... Respondent
2. SECRETARY, KOLLAM CORPORATION,
3. MUSLIM MAJILIS CLUB AND READING ROOM,
4. KARBALA TRUST, PATTATHANAM, KOLLAM,
For Petitioner :SRI.P.B.SURESH KUMAR
For Respondent :SRI.R.KRISHNA RAJ
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.N.RAVINDRAN
Dated :17/12/2010
O R D E R
P.N.RAVINDRAN, J.
---------------------------------------
WP (C) No. 31808 of 2010
----------------------------------------
Dated this the 17th day of December, 2010
J U D G M E N T
Aggrieved by Ext.P8 notice dated 21.07.2010 issued
by the Secretary of Kollam Corporation, calling upon the
petitioner to produce a consent letter from the 4th
respondent, the petitioner has filed Ext.P9 appeal before
the Municipal council. In this writ petition the petitioner
seeks a direction to the Kollam Corporation to consider
Ext.P9 appeal and take a decision thereon within a time
limit to be fixed by this Court. The petitioner also seeks a
direction to the respondents 1 and 2 to refrain from
taking any action pursuant to Ext.P8 notice until Ext. P9
appeal is heard and disposed of.
2. The main contention raised by the petitioner is
that in view of the pendency of O.S. No.430 of 2010 in
the Munsiff’s Court, Kollam where in the issue regarding
title and possession of the premises in question arises for
WP (C) No. 31808 of 2010 2
consideration, the Secretary of Kollam Corporation ought
to have awaited the outcome of the suit.
3. The 4th respondent has filed a counter affidavit
disputing the entitlement of the petitioner to continue in
possession of the premises mentioned in Ext.P8 notice.
The 4th respondent has raised various contentions,
including the contention that three original suits filed by
the office bearers of the 3rd respondent were dismissed
by the civil court.
4. I heard Sri. P.B. Sureshkumar, learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner, Sri. C.Unnikrishnan, learned
standing counsel appearing for the Kollam Corporation,
Sri. K. Subashchandra Bose learned counsel appearing for
the 3rd respondent and Sri. R. Krishanaraj learned
counsel appearing for the 4th respondent.
5. The question whether the subject matter of Ext. P8
notice belongs to the 3rd respondent or to the 4th
respondent, is a matter for the civil court to decide having
regard to the pleadings and the evidence on record. This
WP (C) No. 31808 of 2010 3
Court cannot in this proceedings go into the rival
contentions and decide whether the petitioner is entitled
to continue in possession of the premises mentioned in
Ext.P8. It is primarily for the local authority to decide on
the entitlement of the petitioner to continue to run his
business. In view of the direction issued in Ext.P8 notice
by the Secretary of Kollam Corporation, the petitioner has
filed Ext.P9 appeal before the Municipal council. The said
appeal is even today pending. In such circumstances, I
am of the opinion that the council of Kollam Corporation
should consider the appeal and take an expeditious
decision there on.
I accordingly dispose of this writ petition with a
direction to the Kollam Corporation to consider Ext.P9
appeal and take an appropriate decision thereon after
notice to and affording the petitioner and respondents 3
and 4, a reasonable opportunity of being heard,
expeditiously and at any rate, within one month from the
date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgement. Till
WP (C) No. 31808 of 2010 4
such time, further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P8 notice
shall be kept in abeyance. The contentions of both sides
on the merits are kept open.
P.N.RAVINDRAN,
JUDGE.
rkc