M.Muhammed Sali vs The Thiruvananthapuram … on 15 April, 2009

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 12373 of 2009(N)


1. M.MUHAMMED SALI, S/O. MUHAMMED HANEEF,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE THIRUVANANTHAPURAM CORPORATION,
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE SECRETARY,

3. NOORDEEN M.I.,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.K.SHRIHARI RAO

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC

 Dated :15/04/2009

 O R D E R
                     ANTONY DOMINIC,J.
                  ---------------------
                   W.P.(C).No.12373 of 2009
               ------------------------
             Dated this the 15th day of April, 2009.

                          JUDGMENT

Heard counsel for the petitioner and Standing counsel

appearing for respondents 1 and 2. In the nature of the order

that I propose to pass, I do not consider it necessary to issue

notice to the 3rd respondent.

2. Although, several contentions have been raised in

this writ petition, the only relief that is sought by the

petitioner is a direction to the first respondent to consider

Exhibits P18 and P19 and pass orders thereon. By Exhibit P18,

what is sought for is cancellation of the licence issued in the

name of Shri. Dominic Mathew and the 3rd respondent with

regard to the building bearing numbers T.C 14/2363 and

2365 situated in Survey No.2810/2-7 of Vanchiyoor Village. It

is stated that since the said representation was not

considered, the petitioner filed a reminder, which is Exhibit

P19. According to the petitioner, even Exhibit P19 has not

W.P.(C).No.12373 /2009
2

evoked any response and hence this writ petition is filed.

3. Taking into account the limited nature of relief that

is sought for and without expressing anything on the merits

of the contentions raised in the writ petition, I dispose of this

writ petition directing the first respondent to consider and

pass order on Exhibit P18 referred to above. Before orders

shall be passed, notice shall be issued to the petitioner, 3rd

respondent and any other person who is likely to be affected

by orders on Exhibit P18.

Petitioner may produce a copy of this judgment before

the first respondent, who shall pass orders as above, at any

rate within eight weeks thereafter.

ANTONY DOMINIC
JUDGE

scm