IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH JUNE 2008 / 21ST JYAISHTA 1930 W.P(C).No. 38090 of 2007(H) --------------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- MANOJ P.K.,PROPRIETOR, NATIONAL CABLE TV, PUTHENKULAM PARAVOOR, KOLLAM (DT). BY ADV. SRI.PRATHEESH.P RESPONDENT: --------------- THE SECRETARY, PARAVUR MUNICIPALITY PARAVUR,KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.V.V.RAJA FOR R1 SRI.R.RENJITH FOR R1 SRI.B .SURESH KUMAR, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. =============== W.P.(C) NO. 38090 OF 2007- H ==================== Dated this the 11th day of June, 2008 J U D G M E N T The prayer in this writ petition is to direct the respondent not to give licence to anybody for laying cable poles through the road side of Paravur Municipality. The writ petition has been filed on the averment that the petitioner had applied for permission to lay cable through the road sides of Paravur Municipality and that without entertaining the said application, the rights are attempted to be granted to other persons. 2. Standing counsel on instruction submits that the petitioner did not make proper application nor remit the fee prescribed for that purpose. It is also stated that the person to whom the right has now been granted is not made a party to this writ petition. 3. What is referred to as an application by the petitioner is Ext.P1, which is only a representation. As far as the payment of fee is concerned, what is relied on by the counsel for the petitioner is Ext.P1(a), a receipt dated 15/2/2007. Ext.P1(a) is only an acknowledgment of Ext.P1 and is not an acknowledgment of any payment that has been made by the WPC 38090/07 :2 : petitioner. 4. Apart from all the above, the writ petition is also defective for non implementation of necessary parties. Writ petition is only to be dismissed and I do so. ANTONY DOMINIC,JUDGE. Rp