IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 1661 of 2010(G)
1. UMMER FAROOQUE, KODOPPILLIMALIL HOUSE,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. ALUVA MUNICIPALITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS
... Respondent
2. THE SECRETARY, ALUVA MUNICIPALITY,
3. THE DISTRICT TOURISM PROMOTION COUNCIL,
For Petitioner :SRI.MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :19/01/2010
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
================
W.P.(C) NO. 1661 OF 2010 (G)
=====================
Dated this the 19th day of January, 2010
J U D G M E N T
Petitioner and one Sri.Shaji are the lessees of a restaurant
conducted by them in a building constructed by the 3rd
respondent-the District Tourism Promotion Council. According to
the petitioner, it was pursuant to Ext.P2 joint invitation issued by
the 2nd and 3rd respondents that the restaurant was inaugurated
on 28/11/2009. It is also stated that prior to its inauguration, on
26/11/2009, by Ext.P3 application, they have applied to the
Municipality for licence under Section 447 of the Municipalities
Act, on which orders have not been passed.
2. While so, Ext.P4 notice was issued by the 2nd
respondent alleging that petitioner is conducing the restaurant in
violation of the provisions contained in Section 447 of the
Municipalities Act. On its receipt, petitioner submitted Ext.P6
explanation, which has been acknowledged by the Municipality by
Ext.P7. According to the petitioner, orders on Ext.P4 in the light of
Ext.P6 have not been passed and he apprehends that the
Municipality may take coercive action pursuant to Ext.P4. It is
WPC 1661/10
:2 :
with this grievance, the writ petition is filed.
3. I heard the standing counsel appearing for respondents 1
and 2 also and the learned Government pleader appearing on behalf
of the 3rd respondent.
4. Now that Ext.P4 notice alleging violation of Section 447
has been issued and as petitioner has filed his explanation by Ext.P6,
which is also acknowledged by the Municipality, it is only appropriate
that respondents 1 and 2 should take a final decision on Exts.P4 and
P6, with notice to the petitioner and after hearing him, keeping in
abeyance coercive action pursuant to Ext.P4.
5. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 2nd
respondent to consider Ext.P4 in the light of Ext.P6 and with notice to
the petitioner and the 3rd respondent and after hearing them. This
shall be done, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within 4
weeks of receipt of a copy of this judgment. It is directed that in the
meanwhile, further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P4 will be kept in
abeyance.
Petitioner to produce a copy of this judgment along with a copy
of this writ petition before the respondents for compliance.
ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE
Rp