IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 21ST MAY 2010 / 31ST VAISAKHA 1932 WP(C).No. 14963 of 2010(U) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. N.A.SHERIFFA,AGED 73 YEARS, W/O.A.M.KHADAR PILLAI,ANJIKATH HOUSE,V.M.B.ROAD, PATHADIPALAM,KOCHI-33. 2. A.K.NAZER,S/O.A.M.KHADHAR PILLAI, 25/201-B,ANJIKATH HOUSE,VMB ROAD,PATHADIPALAM, KOCHI-33. BY ADV. SRI.O.V.MANIPRASAD SRI.SAJU J PANICKER RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. KALAMASSERY MUNICIPALITY,REPRESENTED BY IT'S SECRETARY,P.O.CHANGAMPUZHA NAGAR, KOCHI-33. 2. THE SECRETARY,KALAMASSERY MUNICIPALITY, P.O.CHANGAMPUZHA NAGAR,KOCHI-33. 3. THE KALAMASSERY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, REPRESENTED BY THE CHAIRPSRON,KALAMASSERY MUNICIPALITY OFFICE,CHANGAMPUZHA NAGAR.P.O, KOCHI-33. 4. M/S.R.F.MOTORS REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR,PATHADIPALAM,COCHIN UNIVERSIT, P.O.,ERNAKULAM. 5. M/S.UCO BANK,M.G.ROAD BRANCH,RAVIPURAM, ERNAKULAM-16,REPRESENTED BY IT"S BRANCH MANAGER. 6. K.H.ABDUL MAJEED,S/O.HASAN,ELLICKAL HOUSE,PATHADIPALAM,CHANGAMPUZHA NAGAR.P.O, ERNAKULAM. 7. K.H.MOHAMMED ALI,S/O.HASSAN,ELLICKAL HOUSE,PATHADIPALAM,CHANGAMPUZHA NAGAR.P.O, ERNAKULAM. 8. K.H.ABDUL SALAM,S/O.HASSAN,ELLICKAL HOUSE,PATHADIPALAM,CHANGAMPUZHA NAGAR.P.O, ERNAKULAM. R1 TO R3 BY ADV. SHRI ABOOBACKER ADV. SRI.M.RAJASEKHARAN NAYAR FOR R4 R5 BY ADV. SHRI KODOTH SREEDHARAN SRI.JOSEPH A.VADAKKEL FOR R7 & 8 SRI.C.I.ABRAHAM FOR R7 & 8 SRI.JOSE KURIAKOSE (VILANGATTIL) FOR R7 & 8 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No. 14963 of 2010-U - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 21st day of May, 2010. JUDGMENT In this writ petition, the petitioners are aggrieved by the alleged arbitrary action on the part of respondents 1 to 3 in granting a permit under Section 448 of the Municipality Act to the 4th respondent, allegedly in violation of the statutory rules and in violation of the judgments of this Court. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for the Municipality, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 5th respondent Bank and learned counsel appearing for 4th respondent. 3. It was mainly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners when the matter came up for hearing on 17.5.2010, that even the copy of the resolution has not been issued to the petitioners in spite of a specific request made under the Right to Information Act. It was therefore pointed out that the remedy to approach the Tribunal is being deliberately prevented by the Municipality. Today, when the matter came up for hearing, it is pointed out that the copy of the resolution has already been issued to the petitioners. wpc 14963/2010 2 4. It is up to the petitioners to approach the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions by filing an appeal. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 5th respondent Bank submitted that the Bank has already initiated proceedings under the Securitisation Act. Since I am not going into the merits of the matter, it is unnecessary to consider those aspects in this writ petition. Therefore, it is up to the petitioners to file an appeal before the Tribunal and the writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) kav/