IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 19TH OCTOBER 2010 / 27TH ASWINA 1932 WP(C).No. 23009 of 2010(A) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. DR.PRAKASH MATHEW,ELAVUMKUNNEL HOUSE, VELLIYEPPILLY.P.O,PALA-686 574. 2. SUNNY MATHEW,ELAVUMKUNNEL HOUSE, VELLIYEPPILLY.P.O,PALA-686 574. 3. BENNY MATHEW,ELAVUMKUNNEL HOUSE, VELLIYEPPILLY.P.O,PALA-686 574. BY ADV. SRI.P.B.SAHASRANAMAN SRI.K.JAGADEESH SRI.T.S.HARIKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. PALA MUNICIPALITY,MUNICIPAL OFFICE, PALA-686 575. 2. THE CONVENOR,SINGLE WINDOW CLEARANCE BOARD,DISTRICT INDUSTRIES CENTRE,KOTTAYAM-686 001. 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,OFFICE OF THE RDO,PALA-686 575. 4. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,COLLECTORATE, KOTTAYAM-686 001. Addl. R5. POPULAR VEHICLES AND SERVICES LTD., KUTTUKARAN BUILDINGS, MAMANGALAM, ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS WHOLE TIME DIRECTOR, FRANCIS K. PAUL Addl. R5 is impleaded as per oder dated 6.10.2010 in I.A. NO.13544/2010. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. DILEEP MOHAN FOR R3 & 4 SRI.V.M.KURIAN FOR R1 SRI.T.R.RAVI FOR ADDL.R5 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON ON 19/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. -------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO.23009 OF 2010(A) -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 19th day of October, 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioners seek to challenge Exts.P3 and P4. 2. Ext.P3 is a show cause notice and Ext.P4 is the proceedings of the 2nd respondent. Both Exts.P3 and P4 are concerning a building constructed by the petitioners for the purpose of an automobile workshop on the strength of Ext.P1 building permit issued by the first respondent Municipality. 3. According to the petitioners on completion of the construction of the building Ext.P2 occupancy certificate was issued and thereafter the building in question was leased out to the 5th respondent for establishing an automobile workshop. It is stated that the 5th respondent made an application to the 2nd respondent for issuing necessary licence and it was thereupon the 2nd respondent passed Ext.P4 proceedings stating that the construction was made in violation of the provisions contained in Act 28 of 2008. This lead the Municipality to issue Ext.P3 show cause notice to cancel Exts.P1 and P2. It is in these circumstances that this writ petition is filed. WPC.No. 23009/2010 :2 : 4. It is now seen from the counter affidavit filed by the 5th respondent, the tenant, that aggrieved by Ext.P4 proceedings of the 2nd respondent, he has filed an appeal before the State Single Window Clearance Board. Referring to Ext.R5(a), the proceedings of the appellate authority, the 5th respondent submits that in view of the pendency of this writ petition, the appellate authority has deferred the proceedings, awaiting the disposal of this writ petition. 5. Now that the petitioners challenging Ext.P4 and as the 5th respondent has already pursued the statutory remedy that is available to him against Ext.P4, I do not think it is necessary for this court to examine the validity of Ext.P4 and in my view it is only appropriate that the appellate authority should decide the validity of Ext.P4 in the appeal filed by the 5th respondent. 6. Therefore, leaving open all the contentions of the petitioners, this writ petition is disposed of with the following directions. The appellate authority shall dispose of the appeal filed by the 5th respondent against Ext.P4. It will be open to the petitioners to file his objections against Ext.P4 before the appellate authority WPC.No. 23009/2010 :3 : within 2 weeks from today. If objections are so filed, the appellate authority shall issue notice to the parties including the petitioners and pass orders on the appeal filed against Ext.P4, duly adverting to the contentions raised by all the parties. It is directed that until the appeal is disposed of further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P3 shall not be continued and the validity or otherwise of Ext.P3 show cause notice will depend upon the outcome of the appeal filed by the 5th respondent. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/