IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND JULY 2008 / 11TH ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 16332 of 2008(T) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- RIJU MUKUNDAN, S/O.MUKUNDAN, THEVARUTHOPPU VEEDU, NEAR T.B.JUNCTION, ATTINGAL, CHITTATTUKARA DESOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.R.ANILKUMAR, ADV. SRI.P.BANI. RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. ATTINGAL MUNICIPALITY, REP.BY SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL OFFICE, ATTINGAL. 2. SELVI, W/O.KANNAN, VEL BHAVAN, MAITHANAM VARKALA-695141. 3. P.T.RAMAR, PARVATHYPURAM GRAMAM, ATTINGAL. 4. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY SECRETARY, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT, GOVT.SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. GOVT. PLEADER SRI. K.C. SANTHOSH KUMAR FOR R4, ADV. SRI.P.VIJAYAKUMAR FOR R2 & R3, SRI.M.R.ANANDAKUTTAN FOR R1, SMT.M.HEMALATHA FOR R1, SRI.R.S.MADHU FOR R1, SRI.MAHESH ANANDAKUTTAN FOR R1. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/07/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.16332/2008-T: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT NO. 0171798 DT. 13/02/2007. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE RENT DEED EXECUTED ON 13/04/02. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE PETITION DT. 20/05/2008. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// prv. ANTONY DOMINIC, J. -------------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) 16332 of 2008 -------------------------------------------------------- Dated: JULY 2, 2008 JUDGMENT The petitioner claims to be the landlord of a building which is now under the occupation of the 3rd respondent. Petitioner contends that the 3rd respondent is an unauthorised occupant and this writ petition is filed on the allegation that the Municipality was taking hasty action to grant licence to the 3rd respondent despite the fact that the 3rd respondent is an unauthorised occupant and had no consent from the landlord as required under sec.492(3) of the Kerala Municipality Act. 2. Today when the matter came up for orders, learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent Municipality has informed that the Municipality has decided not to grant licence to the 3rd respondent. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the 3rd respondent that he has already preferred an appeal against the said decision. 3. Now that the Municipality has resolved not to grant licence to the 3rd respondent, the grievance in this writ petition no longer W.P.(C) 16332 of 2008 -2- survives. If at all the 3rd respondent is aggrieved by the decision, it is up to him to pursue the matter in accordance with law. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE mt/-