IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 21ST JANUARY 2010 / 1ST MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 2046 of 2010(E) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- 1. BITTAJ JOSEPH, S/O.JOSEPH, ORAPPANIYIL HOUSE, KARIMANNOOR P.O., KURUMPALAMATTOM, THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI DISTRICT. 2. M.J.SCARIA, S/O.JOSEPH, MAPPILASSERIL, MANAKKAD P.O., THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI DISTRICT. 3. K.J.JOY, KUREEKKUNNEL HOUSE, KARIMANOOR P.O., KARIMANOOR, THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI DISTRICT. 4. M.MANI, VANTHIYIL HOUSE, MANAKKADU P.O. THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.G.ARUN SRI.T.R.HARIKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): ------------------- 1. THODUPUZHA MUNICIPALITY, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL OFFICE, THODUPUZHA-685584. 2. THE CHAIRPERSON, THODUPUZHA MUNICIPALITY MUNICIPAL OFFICE, THODUPUZHA-685 584. 3. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KERALA STATE HOUSING BOARD, IDUKKI DIVISION, KATTAPPANA. SRI.P.K.SOYUZ, SC FOR R1 SRI.A.JAYASANKAR, SC FOR KSHB THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 2046 OF 2010 (E) ===================== Dated this the 21st day of January, 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioners are occupants of shop rooms bearing numbers XI/51, 95, 96 and the adjoining portion in the old bus stand building in Thodupuzha. They applied for licence. However, according to them, orders were not passed within one month period specified in Section 447 of Municipalities Act. On that basis, petitioners claim that deemed licence has accrued in their favour by virtue of Section 447(6) of the Kerala Municipality Act. It is contended that subsequently by Exts.P11 to P14 orders, the applications were rejected. These orders have been challenged by the petitioners before the 1st respondent by filing Exts.P15 to P18 appeals along with petitions seeking stay of Exts.P11 to P14. The appeals and stay petitions are pending and in the meanwhile, petitioners allege that the Municipality is taking steps for closing down their business establishments. It is in these circumstances, the writ petition is filed. 2. I heard the counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2 and the standing counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent. WPC 2046/10 :2 : 3. If as stated by the petitioners, the appeal and the stay petitions filed by them are pending consideration of the 1st respondent, 1st respondent has a duty to dispose of the appeals on an expeditious basis. 4. Having regard to the fact that the petitioners' establishments are functioning, I feel it only appropriate that the Municipality should defer further action pursuant to Exts.P11 to P14 until Exts.P15 and P18 appeals are heard and disposed of. The appeals shall be heard with notice to the petitioners as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within 4 weeks of production of a copy of this judgment along with a copy of this writ petition. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp