IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 4TH APRIL 2008 / 15TH CHAITHRA 1930 WP(C).No. 20352 of 2007(W) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- JOSEPH THOMAS, AGED 53, S/O.L.J.THOMAS, LAKAPARAMBIL HOUSE, KURISUMMOODU P.O., CHANGANACHERRY. BY ADV. SRI.VARGHESE C.KURIAKOSE RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF LOCAL ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT. 2. THE CHANGANACHERRY MUNICIPALITY, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY. 3. THE OMBUDSMAN FOR LOCAL SELF GOVT. INSTITUTIONS, TRIVANDRUM. 4. THANKAMMA SEBASTIAN, W/O.SEBASTIAN, KALLOOKADATHIL HOUSE, KURISUMMOODU P.O. CHANGANACHERRY. 5. THE ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER, KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, KOTTAYAM. R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.ANU SIVARAMAN R2 BY SRI.SIBY MATHEW, SC R4 BY ADV. SRI.MATHEW JOHN (K) R5 BY SRI.M.K.CHANDRAMOHANDAS , SC. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/04/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P(C).No.20352 OF 2007 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of April, 2008 JUDGMENT The petitioner and the 4th respondent are in dispute regarding the running of a cement godown. The petitioner had obtained licence from the Municipality and is conducting the godown. The 4th respondent states that the building is put to use for a purpose, for which, it is not authorised and that the building is not constructed in terms of the approved plan and still further, the activity results in pollution. Regarding pollution, Ext.P9 is a report of the Environmental Engineer. It is also stated that there is Ext.R4(g) Commissioner's report. 2. There were proceedings before the learned Ombudsman for Local Self Government Institutions. That authority was directed by this Court, as per Ext.P8 judgment, to consider the matter in accordance with law. The interdicting proceedings stood stayed by this Court pending proceedings before the learned Ombudsman. Thereafter, the Ombudsman issued Ext.P10 WPC.20352/07 2 regarding the submissions of the Town Planning Officer of the Municipality that the permit for the godown had expired on 31.3.2007 and that the Municipality does not intend to renew that permit. That officer also stated before the learned Ombudsman that the cement godown is being run without licence. Accordingly, as per Ext.P10, the Ombudsman directed the Municipality to have necessary coercive steps against the petitioner, including prosecution. The officer of the Municipality, as recorded, has submitted that suitable action would be taken. After Ext.P10 order was issued on 20.6.2007 by the learned Ombudsman, the Municipal Secretary issued Ext.P13 notice on 17.7.2007 calling upon the petitioner to show cause and also to close down the godown. 3. This writ petition filed challenging Ext.P10 has been later amended to one challenging Ext.P13 notice also which was a consequential action on the basis of Ext.P10. WPC.20352/07 3 4. The fact remains that the petitioner had been running the godown under due licence. He applied for renewal of the licence. When such an application for renewal is not disposed of in a time bound manner, the Municipality Act, 1994 provides a deemed renewal of licence. But in the case in hand, even before the learned Ombudsman, it was submitted on 20.6.2007 that the licence had expired on 31.3.2007 and that the Municipality does not intend to renew the licence. But such submission is not sufficient to conclude proceedings on an application for renewal. It is also a matter of fact that Ext.P13 notice was issued on 17.7.2007 and it continues even today without any interdicting order being passed by any authority, including this Court. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner is right in expressing apprehension that Ext.P10 and earlier proceedings of the learned Ombudsman appears to be the foundation for the stand taken by the Municipality that it will not renew the licence. The proceedings before the learned Ombudsman and Ext.P10 order essentially are on the basis that the licence is not renewed. WPC.20352/07 4 Both cannot stand together. It obviously means that the application for renewal of licence has to be considered by the Municipality untrammeled by Ext.P10 or any other order issued as of now. In the aforesaid circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of directing that the application of the petitioner for renewal of licence shall be taken up, considered and disposed of by the competent officer in the Municipality within an outer limit of two weeks from now. The 4th respondent shall also be given an opportunity of being heard in relation to the matter. The petitioner and the 4th respondent are directed to appear before the Secretary of the second respondent Municipality on 8.4.2008. It is clarified that such decision and any further action on the basis of Ext.P13, which holds the field as of now, shall be untrammeled by anything stated in Ext.P10. THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, Judge kkb.