IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE THURSDAY, THE 3RD JANUARY 2008 / 13TH POUSHA 1929 WP(C).No. 6068 of 2007(V) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ 1. GOPALAKRISHNAN P., S/O.LATE LAKSHMANAN, ANJALI, PEROOR, THATTARKONAM P.O., KOLLAM. 2. DR. NATARAJAN P., S/O. LATE LAKSHMANAN, AKHIL NIVAS, MANANTHAVADI, WAYANAD. BY ADV. SRI.B.MOHANLAL RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, POLICE HEAD QUARTERS, ALAPPUZHA. 2. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ALAPPUZHA SOUTH POLICE STATION, ALAPPUZHA. 3. THE ALAPPUZHA MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN,ALAPPUZHA MUNICIPALITY ALAPPUZHA. 4. THE ALAPPUZHA MUNICIPALITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL OFFICE, ALAPPUZHA. 5. KRISHNA MOHAN, VADAKKE MADOM, MULLAKKAL P.O., ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SMT.C.G.BINDU R5 BY ADV. SMT.C.G.AJITHA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, J. ----------------------------------------------- W.P.(C)No. 6068 OF 2007 ----------------------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 3rd January 2008 J U D G M E N T This writ petition has been filed by petitioners who are brothers of respondent No.5 seeking implementation of Ext.P6 and P11 orders passed by the Municipality. Under Exts.P6 and P11, the Municipality had directed closure of a workshop which is being conducted by the 5th respondent in building Door No.17/1901 of Alappuzha Municipality. The ownership of the building is obviously with the petitioners by virtue of a settlement deed executed by their mother. Of course, respondent No.5 has got a contention that the correct door number of the building in which the workshop is conducting as Door No.17/1904. The above contention is settled by this court in other proceedings. The Municipality expressed its inability to implement Exts.P6 and P11 on account of the pendency of civil suit O.S.No.792/2006 on the files of the IInd Additional Munsiff Court, Alappuzha. But it is conceded that the above suit has been disposed of on 6-11-2007. It is agreed at the bar that the disposal was on consensus and the decree directs the Municipality not to evict the 5th respondent from the premises in question till such time as an application for renewal of licence stated to have been filed by the 5th respondent is disposed of. WP(C)No.6068/2007 -2- At the Bar it is submitted that it is not an application for renewal of licence which has been filed by the 5th respondent. Legally also it may not be possible for the 5th respondent to file application for renewal of licence. Since the period of licence standing in the name of grandfather have already expired, the petitioners will have to apply for a fresh licence. Smt. Ajitha, learned counsel for the 5th respondent submitted that an application for fresh licence has been submitted by the 5th respondent. The learned standing counsel for the Municipality has no instruction regarding the pendency of the application. But in view of the submission of the learned counsel for the 5th respondent, I am of the view that the Municipality can be directed to take a decision on the application, if such an application has been filed and is pending now, with notice to the petitioners also. The 5th respondent cannot be allowed to continue to do the business, if the decision of the Municipality on the application for licence comes to be against the 5th respondent. In other words if the decision of the Municipality comes against the 5th respondent, the Municipality will have to implement Exts.P6 & P11. I dispose of the writ petition issuing the following directions: WP(C)No.6068/2007 -3- 2. The Municipality will take up application for licence, if any, filed by the 5th respondent, hear the 5th respondent(applicant for licence) and the petitioners and take a decision on that application in accordance with law, i.e. in accordance with the Rules relating to issuance of licence. The decision as directed above will be taken by the Municipality at the earliest, at any rate within one month of receiving a copy of this judgment. If the decision of the Municipality on the above application is against the 5th respondent, the Municipality will forthwith implement Exts.P6 and P11 and respondents 1 and 2 will render all necessary assistance to respondents 3 and 4 for implementing Exts.P6 and P11. Needless to mention that if the decision of the Municipality comes against the 5th respondent, the 5th respondent will be entitled to challenge the decision in accordance with law. (PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE) ks. WP(C)No.6068/2007 -4- WP(C)No.6068/2007 -5-