IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 28TH MAY 2008 / 7TH JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 15311 of 2008(W) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ C.N.W.NEWS, REG.NO.Q.612/99, NEAR CIVIL STATION, KOLLAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY- S.RAJKUMAR. BY ADV. SRI.S.SANTHOSH KUMAR RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE CORPORATION OF KOLLAM, KOLLAM, REP; BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. CORPORATION COUNCIL, KOLLAM CORPORATION, KOLLAM. 3. THE SECRETARY, CORPORATION OF KOLLAM, KOLLAM. STANDING COUNSEL FOR R1, SRI M.K.CHANDRAMOHAN DAS THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/05/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ W.P.(C). No. 15311 of 2008-W ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Dated this the 28th day of May, 2008 J U D G M E N T By Ext.P7 issued by the Secretary, licence applied for by the petitioner was refused to be renewed. Against this order, petitioner has filed Ext.P9 appeal before the Municipal Council. Admittedly, that appeal was heard by the Mayor on 15/03/2008 and not the Council as mandated and the decision on Ext.P9 appeal was communicated to the petitioner by Ext.P10, issued by the Secretary of the Corporation. It is challenging Exts.P7 and P10 this writ petition has been filed and the main argument that is urged by the petitioner is that under Section 509(1) of the Kerala Municipality Act, it is for the second respondent to hear the appeal and pass orders on Ext.P9. 2. I heard the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, who concedes that Ext.P10 order was issued by the Secretary of the first respondent. It is also contended that the Council had delegated the hearing to the Mayor and that it was therefore that he heard the petitioner. W.P.(C).No.15311/2008-W -: 2 :- 3. From the submissions made in this Court what is evident is that the appeal was heard only by the Mayor and it is not clear that the proceedings of the hearing was even presented before the Council or that it was ratified by the Council. Since the appeal was therefore heard by the Mayor as demanded by the Secretary for that reason Ext.P10 is to be set aside. Accordingly Ext.P10 and consequential communication Ext.P11 will stand set aside. It is directed that the second respondent will hear the petitioner and depending upon the decision taken on Ext.P9 the same will be communicated to the petitioner. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge ms