IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 5TH FEBRUARY 2009 / \6TH MAGHA 1930 WP(C).No. 3909 of 2009(M) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER : ----------------------- RAZIA, W/O. ABDUL SHUKKUR, AGED 37 YEARS, KALLINGAL HOUSE, KOOCHIKKAL, TIRUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.K.MOHAMED RAVUF RESPONDENTS : -------------------------- 1. THE TIRUR MUNICIPALITY, TIRUR, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE SECRETARY, TIRUR MUNICIPALITY, TIRUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ----------------------------- W.P.(C) No.3909 of 2009 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 5th day of February, 2009 JUDGMENT Exhibit P3 is the order passed by the second respondent declining to renew the licence of the petitioner. It is stated that the matter was taken up in appeal before the Municipal committee. The appeal was rejected. Again the petitioner approached Tribunal by filing Appeal No. 67 of 2008, a copy of the appeal memorandum is Exhibit P5. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, by judgment rendered on 24/09/2008, the appeal was rejected. It is stated that though the petitioner has applied for a copy of the Tribunal judgment, copy has not been issued so far. 2. In the meanwhile, the petitioner has been issued Exhibit P6, requiring him to close down the business establishment and also warning that consequential action, in case of failure to comply with the same will be initiated. It is in these circumstances, writ petition has been filed. 3. Although, the counsel for the petitioner seeks stay of implementation of Exhibit P6 order, it is up to the petitioner to pursue his remedies against the appellate order passed by the Tribunal. 4. However having regard to the complaint that copy is yet to W.P.(C) No.3909/ 2009 2 be obtained and that order is sought to be implemented, I feel that the petitioner is justified in seeking an order to safeguard his interests. Writ petition is therefore disposed of with the following direction; 1)that implementation of Exhibit P6 will be kept in abeyance for one month from today. 2) It is made clear that in case, the petitioner does not produce any order restraining the implementation of Exhibit P6 within the said period, the second respondent will be free to implement Exhibit P6 order. Petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment before the second respondent for compliance. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE scm