IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE MONDAY, THE 28TH JANUARY 2008 / 8TH MAGHA 1929 WP(C).No. 32650 of 2007(J) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ R. THULASEEDHARAN, AGED 45 YEARS, S/O. LATE RAGHAVAN, GEETHA BHAVANAM, ADOOR P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.C.C.THOMAS RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE SECRETARY, ADOOR MUNICIPALITY, ADOOR, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT PIN-691 523. 2. CHERIAN GEORGE, S/O. GEORGE, NADAKKAVIL HOUSE, ADOOR P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN-691 523. 3. THE MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, ADOOR MUNICIPALITY, ADOOR, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN-691 523. 4. ADOOR MUNICIPALITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, ADOOR, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN-691 523. 5. THE CHAIRPERSON, ADOOR MUNICIPALITY, ADOOR,PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SMT.ANJU MEERA BIRLA SRI.GEORGE VARGHESE (MANACHIRACKEL) THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/01/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, J. ----------------------------------------------- W.P.(C)No. 32650 OF 2007-J ----------------------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 28TH JANUARY, 2008 J U D G M E N T The grievance of the petitioner, who is conducting a hotel by name 'Hotel Geethas' at Adoor, is that Ext.P11 appeal filed by him is not being finally disposed of by the Municipal Council and Exts. P2 to P5 applications for renewal of licence are not being considered by the Municipality on two reasons. First reason is that the consent of the landlord of the building where the hotel is being conducted has not been submitted and secondly the conduct of the hotel is causing nuisance to the 2nd respondent. On entertaining this writ petition, this Court passed an interim order permitting the petitioner to conduct the hotel provisionally and subject to further orders to be passed by this Court. That interim order has been modified by order dated 27-11-2007 incorporating a condition that the interim order will continue only if the petitioner abates the nuisance stated in Ext.P9 (the nuisance which is being caused to the 2nd respondent). The submission of Sri. C.C. Thomas, Senior counsel that in compliance with the order dated 27-11-2007 whatever is necessary has been done for abating the nuisance stated in Ext.P9 is not disputed before me. Under these circumstances, I am of the view that the writ petition WP(C)No.32650/2007 -2- itself can be disposed of issuing the following directions: The Council of the 3rd respondent Municipality will take up Ext.P11 appeal and dispose of the same in accordance with law after hearing the concerned parties, viz. the petitioner and the 2nd respondent. Decision shall be taken on the appeal at the earliest, at any rate, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. In the meanwhile since Exts.P2 to P5 applications are pending, the first respondent Secretary of the Municipality is directed to consider Exts.P2 to P5 and to pass orders on the same without insisting on production of any fresh consent from the landlord of the building and since the petitioner only seeks to continue the hotel, which was commenced by his father on the basis of the original consent granted by the landlord, taking into account the circumstance that all other legal heirs of his father have submitted Ext.P1 consent in the matter of petitioner conducting business in the premises. (PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE) ks. WP(C)No.32650/2007 -3- WP(C)No.32650/2007 -4-