IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 25TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 3RD ASWINA 1930 WP(C).No. 26237 of 2008(W) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- BENNY THOMSON, S/O.THOMSON, BUSINESS, KUMBADINHAMUKKU PO.THAZHEKKADU, CHALAKUDY, PIN-680 697. BY ADV. SRI.K.V.SOHAN SMT.SREEJA SOHAN.K. RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. ANGAMALY MUNICIPALITY, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, ANGAMALY. 2. SIBI DAVIS, MUNDADAN HOUSE, ANGAMALY PO., 3. BIJU PAULOSE, ARAKKAL HOUSE VOLOVUZHY ROAD, ANGAMALY PO. 4. M.O.JOY, MADATHUMUDI HOUSE, NEAR RAILWAY STATION, ANGAMALY PO., PIN-683 572. ADV. SRI.SAIBY JOSE KIDANGOOR FOR R2-4 SRI.P.SANTHALINGAM (SR.) FOR R1 SRI.S.SHARAN FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 26237 of 2008(W) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 - TRUE COPY OF THE OFFER LETTER SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER IN WHICH THE CHAIRPERSON IN HER OWN HANDWRITING DIRECTED THE SECRETARY TO TAKE FURTHER ACTION FOR GRANT OF LICENSE REGARDING ROOM NO.P1, DT: 30.5.2008. EXT.P2 - TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE FIRST RESPONDENT, DATED 30.05.2008. EXT.P3 - TRUE COPY OF THE TRADE LICENSE FEE REMITTED RECEIPT DATED 30.5.2008. EXT.P4 - TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C) NO. 16979/2008 DATED 12.6.2008. EXT.P5 - TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C) NO. 19427/2008 DATED 21.8.2008. EXT.P6 - TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P. 20109/2008 DATED 21.8.2008. EXT.P7 - TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER, DT: 28.8.2008. EXT.P8 - TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 29.8.2008. EXT.P9 - TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT DATED 3.9.2008. /TRUE COPY/ PA TO JUDGE rhs S.SIRI JAGAN, J ================== W.P(C)No.26237 of 2008 ================== Dated this the 25th day of September, 2008. J U D G M E N T The petitioner is challenging Ext.P9 order passed by the 1st respondent pursuant to Ext.P6 judgment on the ground that the petitioner has not been given a notice and hearing before issuing Ext.P9 order as directed in Ext.P6 judgment. The learned Standing Counsel for the Municipality now submits that a fresh order would be passed after issuing notice to the petitioner and hearing him. This is recorded and the writ petition is disposed of. S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE rhs