IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE TUESDAY, THE 25TH MARCH 2008 / 5TH CHAITHRA 1930 WP(C).No. 9817 of 2008(R) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ M.K.FATHIMA, W/O.KUNNOTH FAIZAL, KUNNOTH HOUSE, VILLAIAPALLIL P.O., VADAKARA. BY ADV. SRI.S.MOHAMMED AL RAFI SRI.I.SHAHUL HAMEED RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. KOZHIKODE CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, KOZHIKODE. 2. THACHARAKANDIYIL KUNHIPATHU, W/O.KUNHAMMADKUTTY MUSALIYAR, P.O.VILLIAPALLY, VADAKARA. 3. THE TRIBUNAL FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1-R2 BY ADV.MR.P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE,J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No.9817 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated: 25th March, 2008 JUDGMENT In this Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution the petitioner challenges Ext.P2 order of the 1st respondent-Corporation rejecting the petitioner's application for transfer of a licence in respect of a tourist home by name 'Paradesi Tourist Home' on the ground that the other legal heir of the original licencee one Kunhipathu has not given consent. Against Ext.P2, the petitioner has preferred R.P.No.14/2008. 2. Heard Mr.S.Mohammed Al Rafi, counsel for the petitioner and and Mr.P.V.Kunhikrishnan, Standing counsel for the 1st respondent- Corporation. Since it is only a limited relief which is being granted to the petitioner, I am not inclined to issue notice to the 2nd respondent. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the R.P. as well as petition for stay filed by the petitioner stood posted before the Tribunal on 22.3.2008. But the Tribunal was unable to take up the matter on that day on account of the boycott call by the Bar. The petitioner's apprehension is that since the current licence will expire on 31st instant, the 1st respondent will initiate coercive steps for closing down the tourist home on the reason that no stay of Ext.P2. The R.P. W.P.C.No.9817/08 - 2 - presently has been posted to 17.4.2008. The Standing Counsel for the 1st respondent-Corporation submits that the petitioner is trying to indirectly gain a benefit that was denied to him by the Tribunal and that too behind back of the 2nd respondent, the affected party. Though the submission cannot be said to be absolutely incorrect, I feel in the circumstances of this case where a running tourist him stands the risk of being closed down, the petitioner can be given temporary relief. Therefore, I dispose of the Writ Petition issuing the following directions: The third respondent-Tribunal will expedite the hearing and disposal of R.P.No.14 of 2008. The Tribunal will pass orders on application for stay, if any, filed by the petitioner in that R.P. at the earliest opportunity after hearing both sides. Till the Tribunal passes orders on the stay petition, the 1st respondent-Corporation will not take coercive steps for closing down the tourist home. It is made clear that I have not examined the merits of the petitioner's grounds against Ext.P2 in this Writ Petition. srd PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE