IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN FRIDAY, THE 17TH DECEMBER 2010 / 26TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 31808 of 2010(A) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- P.BABU, S/O.PONNAN, AGED 49 YEARS, RESIDING AT B.S.BHAVAN, S.N.G.NAGAR, 161, MULLUVILA, VADAKKEVILA P.O., KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.B.SURESH KUMAR SRI.LEO GEORGE SRI.K.P.SUJESH KUMAR SRI.K.N.SASIDHARAN NAIR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. KOLLAM CORPORATION, CORPORATION OFFICE, KOLLAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY-691001. 2. SECRETARY, KOLLAM CORPORATION, CORPORATION OFFICE, KOLLAM-691001. 3. MUSLIM MAJILIS CLUB AND READING ROOM, NEAR S.M.P.PALACE, CHINNAKKADA, KOLLAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT-691001. 4. KARBALA TRUST, PATTATHANAM, KOLLAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY-691001. STANDING COUNSEL SRI. C. UNNIKRISHNAN FOR R1 ADV. SRI.R.KRISHNA RAJ FOR R4 SRI.K.SUBASH CHANDRA BOSE FOR R3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 31808 of 2010(A) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1:- TRUE COPY OF THE CONSENT LETTER ISSUED BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER DT.18.5.09 P2:- TRUE COPY OF THE LICENCE ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DT.16.6.09 P3:- TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DT.16.6.09 P4:- TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DT.5.6.10 P5:- TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT DT.11.6.10. P6:- TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S. NO. 430/10 BEFORE THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, KOLLAM DT. NIL P7:- TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER DT.9.7.10 P8:- TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DT. 21.7.10 P9:- TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE COUNCIL OF THE KOLLAM CORPORATION DT.16.8.10 P10:- TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BEFORE THE COUNCIL OF THE KOLLAM CORPORATION DT.16.8.10 RESPPONDENT'S EXHIBITS R-4(a):- COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE GOVERNMENT. R-4(b):- COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.A.1423/2000 R-4(c):- COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR. R-4(d):- COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE RESURVEY DIRECTOR R-4(e):- COPY OF THE PATTAYAM R-4(f):- COPY OF THE PATTAYAM R-4(g):- COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT R-4(h):- COPY OF THE POSSESSION CRTIFICATE R-4(i):- COPY OF THE LEASE DEED WP(C).No. 31808 of 2010(A) R-4(j):- COPY OF THE NOTICE OF THE TAHSILDAR. R-4(k):- COPY OF THE COMPLAINT OF JUJUMA R-4(l):- COPY OF THE COMPLAINT OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT R-4(m):- COPY OF THE LEASE DEED R-4(n):- COPY OF THE COMPLAINT OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT. R-4(o):- COPY OF THE NOTICE OF THE CORPORATION R-4(p):- COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE CORPORATION R-4(q):- COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT. R-4(r):- COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT. R-4(s):- COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT. R-4(t):- COPY OF THE COMPLAINT OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT R-4(u):- COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE CORPORATION. //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE. P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. --------------------------------------- WP (C) No. 31808 of 2010 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of December, 2010 J U D G M E N T Aggrieved by Ext.P8 notice dated 21.07.2010 issued by the Secretary of Kollam Corporation, calling upon the petitioner to produce a consent letter from the 4th respondent, the petitioner has filed Ext.P9 appeal before the Municipal council. In this writ petition the petitioner seeks a direction to the Kollam Corporation to consider Ext.P9 appeal and take a decision thereon within a time limit to be fixed by this Court. The petitioner also seeks a direction to the respondents 1 and 2 to refrain from taking any action pursuant to Ext.P8 notice until Ext. P9 appeal is heard and disposed of. 2. The main contention raised by the petitioner is that in view of the pendency of O.S. No.430 of 2010 in the Munsiff's Court, Kollam where in the issue regarding title and possession of the premises in question arises for WP (C) No. 31808 of 2010 2 consideration, the Secretary of Kollam Corporation ought to have awaited the outcome of the suit. 3. The 4th respondent has filed a counter affidavit disputing the entitlement of the petitioner to continue in possession of the premises mentioned in Ext.P8 notice. The 4th respondent has raised various contentions, including the contention that three original suits filed by the office bearers of the 3rd respondent were dismissed by the civil court. 4. I heard Sri. P.B. Sureshkumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri. C.Unnikrishnan, learned standing counsel appearing for the Kollam Corporation, Sri. K. Subashchandra Bose learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent and Sri. R. Krishanaraj learned counsel appearing for the 4th respondent. 5. The question whether the subject matter of Ext. P8 notice belongs to the 3rd respondent or to the 4th respondent, is a matter for the civil court to decide having regard to the pleadings and the evidence on record. This WP (C) No. 31808 of 2010 3 Court cannot in this proceedings go into the rival contentions and decide whether the petitioner is entitled to continue in possession of the premises mentioned in Ext.P8. It is primarily for the local authority to decide on the entitlement of the petitioner to continue to run his business. In view of the direction issued in Ext.P8 notice by the Secretary of Kollam Corporation, the petitioner has filed Ext.P9 appeal before the Municipal council. The said appeal is even today pending. In such circumstances, I am of the opinion that the council of Kollam Corporation should consider the appeal and take an expeditious decision there on. I accordingly dispose of this writ petition with a direction to the Kollam Corporation to consider Ext.P9 appeal and take an appropriate decision thereon after notice to and affording the petitioner and respondents 3 and 4, a reasonable opportunity of being heard, expeditiously and at any rate, within one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgement. Till WP (C) No. 31808 of 2010 4 such time, further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P8 notice shall be kept in abeyance. The contentions of both sides on the merits are kept open. P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE. rkc