Kerala High Court
Ummer Farooque vs Aluva Municipality on 19 January, 2010
Author: Antony Dominic
Bench: Antony Dominic
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