IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH AUGUST 2008 / 15TH SRAVANA 1930 WP(C).No. 21618 of 2008(W) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ JOY MOOLANS , S/O.VARGHESE, AGED YEARS, MOOLANS HOUSE, ANGAMLAY BY ADV. SRI.DENIZEN KOMATH RESPONDENTS: ------------- THE PERUMBAVOOR MUNICIPALITY PERUMBAVOOR, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY BY ADV. SRI.V.M.KURIAN FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J ----------------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.21618/2008 ----------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 6th day of August, 2008 JUDGMENT Challenge in this writ petition is against Exts.P4 and P6. Petitioner is also seeking a direction to the respondent Municipality to refrain from initiating action against him for the erection of a Flexi Board. 2. It would appear that the petitioner is carrying on business within the jurisdiction of the respondent Municipality. In relation to a Flexi Board installed by the petitioner, there were complaints and in the judgment in WP(c).No.10920/2008, this court directed the Municipality to hear the petitioner and the complainants and take a decision in the matter. It is stated that, accordingly the parties were heard and the Municipality issued Ext.P4 requiring the petitioner to remove the Flexi Board. WP(c).No.21618/08 2 Thereupon the petitioner filed Ext.P5. In Ext.P5 also it was the petitioner's contention that in terms of Section 271 of the Municipality Act, the petitioner was not liable to pay tax or to obtain licence from the Municipality. Without prejudice to the said contentions, he expressed his willingness to remove the Board and also stated that if any licence is required to be obtained from the Municipality, Ext.P5 may be treated as an application for that purpose. Ext.P5 was considered by the Municipality and Ext.P6 was issued requiring the petitioner to remove the metal frame on which the Flexi Board installed. It is on receipt of Ext.P6 that this writ petition has been filed. 3. Learned counsel for the Municipality contends that the 3rd respondent in Ext.P3 judgment had filed a complaint against the Flexi Board installed by the petitioner and it was on that complaint, the proceedings were initiated. It is also stated that, if at all the petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P6, the course open to the petitioner is to file an appeal against WP(c).No.21618/08 3 the said order. Yet another point raised by the counsel for the Municipality is that, if the petitioner intends to apply for licence for the installation of Flexi Board, he should make an application in the prescribed form, rather than making a representation as has been done in Ext.P5. 4. I have considered the submissions made by both sides. Now it would appear that, irrespective of the contentions raised, the petitioner wants to make an application to the Municipality for obtaining necessary licence for the installation of Flexi Board and the frame. If that be so, it is for the petitioner to make appropriate application in the prescribed form, rather than resting himself comfortable by making Ext.P5 which is only a representation. 5. Therefore, I direct that if the petitioner files an appropriate application for licence within two weeks from today, that will be considered and appropriate orders thereon will be passed by the Municipality expeditiously. It WP(c).No.21618/08 4 is directed that, if the petitioner files an application as above, naturally the decision to take further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P6 will be kept in abeyance. It is clarified that, on receipt of the application as above, the Municipality shall put the petitioner and the 3rd respondent in Ext.P3 judgment on notice, hear both of them and thereafter take a decision. Writ Petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE vi. WP(c).No.21618/08 5