In The High Court Of Kerala At … vs The Tirur Municipality on 5 February, 2009

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 3909 of 2009(M)


2. RAZIA, W/O. ABDUL SHUKKUR,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE TIRUR MUNICIPALITY,
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE SECRETARY,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.K.K.MOHAMED RAVUF

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC

 Dated :05/02/2009

 O R D E R
                       ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
                       -----------------------------
                      W.P.(C) No.3909 of 2009
                   --------------------------------------
               Dated this the 5th day of February, 2009

                              JUDGMENT

Exhibit P3 is the order passed by the second respondent

declining to renew the licence of the petitioner. It is stated that the

matter was taken up in appeal before the Municipal committee. The

appeal was rejected. Again the petitioner approached Tribunal by

filing Appeal No. 67 of 2008, a copy of the appeal memorandum is

Exhibit P5. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, by

judgment rendered on 24/09/2008, the appeal was rejected. It is stated

that though the petitioner has applied for a copy of the Tribunal

judgment, copy has not been issued so far.

2. In the meanwhile, the petitioner has been issued Exhibit

P6, requiring him to close down the business establishment and also

warning that consequential action, in case of failure to comply with

the same will be initiated. It is in these circumstances, writ petition

has been filed.

3. Although, the counsel for the petitioner seeks stay of

implementation of Exhibit P6 order, it is up to the petitioner to pursue

his remedies against the appellate order passed by the Tribunal.

4. However having regard to the complaint that copy is yet to

W.P.(C) No.3909/ 2009
2

be obtained and that order is sought to be implemented, I feel that the

petitioner is justified in seeking an order to safeguard his interests.

Writ petition is therefore disposed of with the following

direction;

1)that implementation of Exhibit P6 will be kept in abeyance

for one month from today.

2) It is made clear that in case, the petitioner does not

produce any order restraining the implementation of

Exhibit P6 within the said period, the second respondent

will be free to implement Exhibit P6 order.

Petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment before the

second respondent for compliance.

ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE

scm