High Court Kerala High Court

Bittaj Joseph vs Thodupuzha Municipality on 21 January, 2010

Kerala High Court
Bittaj Joseph vs Thodupuzha Municipality on 21 January, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 2046 of 2010(E)


1. BITTAJ JOSEPH, S/O.JOSEPH,
                      ...  Petitioner
2. M.J.SCARIA, S/O.JOSEPH,
3. K.J.JOY, KUREEKKUNNEL HOUSE,
4. M.MANI, VANTHIYIL HOUSE, MANAKKADU P.O.

                        Vs



1. THODUPUZHA MUNICIPALITY, REPRESENTED
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE CHAIRPERSON, THODUPUZHA MUNICIPALITY

3. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KERALA STATE

                For Petitioner  :SRI.V.G.ARUN

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC

 Dated :21/01/2010

 O R D E R
                        ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
                      ================
                  W.P.(C) NO. 2046 OF 2010 (E)
                =====================

           Dated this the 21st day of January, 2010

                           J U D G M E N T

Petitioners are occupants of shop rooms bearing numbers

XI/51, 95, 96 and the adjoining portion in the old bus stand

building in Thodupuzha. They applied for licence. However,

according to them, orders were not passed within one month

period specified in Section 447 of Municipalities Act. On that

basis, petitioners claim that deemed licence has accrued in their

favour by virtue of Section 447(6) of the Kerala Municipality Act.

It is contended that subsequently by Exts.P11 to P14 orders, the

applications were rejected. These orders have been challenged by

the petitioners before the 1st respondent by filing Exts.P15 to P18

appeals along with petitions seeking stay of Exts.P11 to P14. The

appeals and stay petitions are pending and in the meanwhile,

petitioners allege that the Municipality is taking steps for closing

down their business establishments. It is in these circumstances,

the writ petition is filed.

2. I heard the counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2

and the standing counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent.

WPC 2046/10
:2 :

3. If as stated by the petitioners, the appeal and the stay

petitions filed by them are pending consideration of the 1st

respondent, 1st respondent has a duty to dispose of the appeals

on an expeditious basis.

4. Having regard to the fact that the petitioners’

establishments are functioning, I feel it only appropriate that the

Municipality should defer further action pursuant to Exts.P11 to

P14 until Exts.P15 and P18 appeals are heard and disposed of.

The appeals shall be heard with notice to the petitioners as

expeditiously as possible, at any rate within 4 weeks of

production of a copy of this judgment along with a copy of this

writ petition.

Writ petition is disposed of as above.

ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE
Rp