IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 29669 of 2009(C)
1. DINESH KUMAR, SON OF DIPARAM,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. KANNUR MUNICIPALITY, KANNUR,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.M.RAMESH CHANDER
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN
Dated :21/10/2009
O R D E R
THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J
...........................................
WP(C).NO. 29669 OF 2009
............................................
DATED THIS THE 21st DAY OF OCTOBER, 2009
JUDGMENT
Standing counsel takes notice for the
respondent.
2. With the materials on record, the
petitioner demonstrates that he applied for
licence for a Parcel Service Centre after
obtaining a building on licence. Ext.P2 is also
stated to have been produced. With the passage
of time, the petitioner claims that he has a
deemed licence since the municipal authority
has not rejected the application for licence.
He now faces Ext.P4, a notice to close down the
premises, on account of objections raised by
the neighbours. Though not the receipt issued
by the Municipality, Ext.P3 is obtained by the
petitioner for payment of profession tax during
the second half year of 2008-2009. With these
Wpc 29669/09 2
materials, it is appropriate that the Secretary
hears the petitioner and issues orders only after
considering the materials. Under such
circumstances, it is ordered that if the
petitioner shows cause in answer to Ext.P4,
within a period of ten days from now, the
Secretary will decide on that issue and issue
final orders within a further period of two
weeks, after giving the petitioner an opportunity
of hearing. Until then, further enforcement of
Ext.P4 will stand suspended, having regard to the
peculiar facts ad circumstances of this case.
Writ petition ordered accordingly.
THOTTATHIL B RADHAKRISHNAN,
JUDGE
lgk/22/10