IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD FEBRUARY 2010 / 14TH MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 3499 of 2010(J) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- A.K.NASAR, ANGIKKATH HOUSE, V.M.B. ROAD, PATHADIPPALAM, KOCHI-33. BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE VARGHESE(PERUMPALLIKUTTIYIL) RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER FOR HEALTH, ERNAKULAM. 3. THE SECRETARY, KALAMASSERY MUNICIPALITY, P.O.CHANGAMPUZHA NAGAR, KOCHI-33. 4. THE KALAMASSERY MUNICIPALITY, CHANGAMPUZHA NAGAR P.O., KOCHI-33. 5. K.H.ABDUL MAJEED, S/O.HASSAN, ILLIKKAL HOUSE, PATHADIPPALAM, CHANGAMPUZHA NAGAR P.O., ERNAKULAM. 6. K.H.MOHAMMEDALI, S/O.HASSAN, ILLIKKAL HOUSE, PATHADIPPALAM, CHANGAMPUZHA NAGAR P.O., ERNAKULAM. 7. K.H.ABDUL SALAM, S/O.HASSAN, ILLIKKAL HOUSE, PATHADIPPALAM, CHANGAMPUZHA NAGAR P.O., ERNAKULAM. 8. NAZEEMA KAREEM, W/O.LATE ABDUL KAREEM, ILLIKKAL HOUSE, PATHADIPPALAM, CHANGAMPUZHA NAGAR P.O., ERNAKULAM. 9. SHABNA KAREEM, D/O.LATE ABDUL KAREEM, ILLIKKAL HOUSE, PATHADIPPALAM, CHANGAMPUZHA NAGAR P.O., ERNAKULAM. WP(C).No. 3499 of 2010 -2- 10. M/S.R.F.MOTORS, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, PATHADIPPALAM, COCHIN UNIVERSITY.P.O, ERNAKULAM. ADV. SRI.GEORGE KARITHANAM VARGHESE FOR R5 TO 9 GP K.R.DEEPA SC SRI.M.K.ABOOBACKER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J ------------------- W.P.(C).3499/2010 -------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of February, 2010 JUDGMENT 1. Petitioner challenges Exts.P7 and P10. 2. Ext.P7 is a No Objection Certificate granted by the District Medical Officer. It is stated in Ext.P7 that on inspection it was found that there are no dwelling houses within 100 M radius of the site. Subsequently, according to the learned counsel for the 10th respondent, on an application made by the 10th respondent, Ext.P10 order was issued by the DMO, correcting the aforesaid sentence in Ext.P7 as 'there are nine building houses within 100 M radius of the site'. 3. According to the petitioner, both Exts.P7 and P10 are erroneous. It is stated that even going by the plan attached to Ext.P7, there are more dwelling houses than what is indicated in Ext.P10. It is also stated that he had filed a complaint before the DMO as early as on 11.6.2009 which remains unattended even now. W.P.(C).3499/10 2 4. On behalf of respondents 5 to 9 and 10 it is now pointed out that after Exts.P7 and P10 were issued, considering the aforesaid documents, Secretary of the Municipality passed order dated 30.7.2009 directing issuance of licence to the 10th respondent. It is argued that aggrieved by the aforesaid order, petitioner filed an appeal to the Municipal Council where the grounds which are urged by him against Ext.P7 and P10 were also urged. It is stated that the appeal was rejected and a revision was filed to the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions. The Revision was allowed and this order was challenged by the 10th respondent in W.P.(C).35470/2009. That writ petition was disposed of by judgment dated 22.1.2010 directing the Municipal Council to consider the matter treating the order passed by the Secretary, which was challenged and set aside as a report made by him in terms of Section 448(3) of the Kerala Municipality Act. 5. From the aforesaid facts, it is thus evident that the W.P.(C).3499/10 3 grounds which are urged by the petitioner against Exts.P7 and P10 have already been urged before the Municipal Council and the Municipal Council seized of the entire issue. If that be so, it is open to the petitioner to canvass his case to the Municipal Council, when the Council considers the application made by the 10th respondent for licence pursuant to the directions of this Court in the judgment in W.P.(C).35470/2009. Therefore, I do not think it necessary for this Court to entertain this writ petition at this stage. Writ petition is accordingly dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge mrcs