IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 8TH JULY 2008 / 17TH ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 19569 of 2008(D) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ SPENCER'S RETAIL LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE, 30/286, PANICKER FOUNDATION,PETTA JUNCTION, TRIPUNITHURA, KOCHI 682 038, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER-KERALA K.SREEKANTH AGED 37 YEARS, SON OF A .KUMAR. BY ADV. SRI.H.B.SHENOY SRI.B.ASHOK SHENOY SRI.THOMAS P.MAKIL SMT.LAKSHMI B.SHENOY SRI.ABU MATHEW SRI.SOBHAN GEORGE RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. CORPORATION OF THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, CORPORATION OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM695 033. 2. THE MAYOR CORPORATION OF THIRUVANANTHAPURM, CORPORATION OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 033. 3. THE SECRETARY, CORPORATION OF THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, CORPORATION OFFICE, THIRUVNANTHAPURAM 695 033. 4. THE HEALTH OFFICER, CORPORATION OF THIRUVANANTAHPURAM, CORPORATION OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURM 695 033. BY ADV. SRI.N.NANDAKUMARA MENON (SR.) FOR R1 TO 4 SRI.P.K.MANOJKUMAR FOR R1 TO 4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. -------------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) 19569 of 2008 -------------------------------------------------------- Dated: JULY 8, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner submits that it had applied for a trade licence and that a deemed licence had occurred in its favour. On the expiry of its period, petitioner sought renewal of the licence and Ext.P6 application made in this behalf is still pending. In the meantime Ext.P8 notice was issued by the respondent Corporation requiring the petitioner to close down the establishment. 2. On receipt of Ext.P8 notice, petitioner filed a writ petition before this court as WP(C) 17803/2008. That writ petition was disposed of by Ext.P9 judgment relegating the petitioner to avail of the statutory remedy of appeal before the Council of the Corporation. It was also directed that further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P8 will be kept in abeyance for a period of two weeks, in order to enable the petitioner to obtain appropriate interlocutory orders from the Appellate Authority. 3. It is stated that in pursuance to the aforesaid judgment, petitioner filed Ext.P10 appeal and Ext.P11 stay petition. WP(C) 19569 of 2008 2 Petitioner complains that even on Ext.P11 orders have not been passed by the Appellate Authority. In the meantime, this writ petition has been filed by the petitioner on the apprehension that during the pendency of the appeal and the stay petition, the Corporation might implement Ext.P8 notice. 4. The case was adjourned with a direction to the standing counsel to obtain directions regarding the pendency of the appeal and the stay petition and on instructions it is confirmed that the appeal and the stay petition are pending. In view of the pendency of the appeal and the stay petition as above, it is only proper that until the Appellate Authority considers Ext.P10 appeal, further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P8 are deferred. Accordingly the writ petition is disposed of directing that the Council of the 1st respondent Corporation shall hear and dispose of Ext.P10 appeal filed by the petitioner as expeditiously as possible, and at any rate within two months from today, with notice to the petitioner. It is also directed that meanwhile further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P8 will be kept in abeyance. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE mt/-