IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE TUESDAY, THE 26TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 7TH PHALGUNA 1929 WP(C).No. 6581 of 2008(H) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ ALEYAMMA JOHN, KALEECKAL PADICKAL PUTHENVEETTIL GRACE BHAVAN, ANGADICAL MURI, CHENGANNUR VILLAGE, CHENGANNUR TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.O.D.SIVADAS RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE SECRETARY, CHENGANNUR MUNICIPALITY, CHENGANNUR. 2. GEORGE, MAMMOOTTIL HOUSE, CHERUVALLUR MURI, CHERIYANAD VILLAGE, CHENGANNUR TALUK. BY SRI.H.HARIKRISHNAN, (SC) THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, J. ---------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO. 6581 of 2008 ---------------------------------- Dated this the 26th day of February , 2008 JUDGMENT The grievance voiced by the petitioner in this Writ Petition is that the 2nd respondent has been issued with a licence by the Municipality for conducting business in Door Nos.135, 136 and 137 of Ward VIII without the knowledge or consent of the petitioner, who is the owner of the building. 2. When this Writ Petition came up for admission, Sri.S.Harikrishnan, the learned Standing Counsel took notice on behalf of the Municipality and I have heard his submissions also. Sri.Harikrishnan submits that the petitioner is not the owner of the building and it is the petitioner's son, who owns the building. Licence was granted to the 2nd respondent on the basis of a lease which was given to the 2nd respondent by the petitioner's son. 3. I do not propose to settle the controversy as to who is the owner of the building and who is authorized to give consent WPC No.6581/2008 2 in the matter of issuance of licence to the 2nd respondent. Since Ext.P1 complaint is filed by the petitioner before the Secretary of the Municipality, it is only appropriate that a decision will be taken on that complaint by the Secretary of the Municipality with notice to the 2nd respondent. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of issuing the following directions: The first respondent will take up Ext.P1 immediately, issue notice to the petitioner as well as to the 2nd respondent, hear both of them and take a correct decision on Ext.P1. It is open to both sides to produce documents substantiating their claims over the building in question. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, JUDGE. dpk