IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 6TH JUNE 2008 / 16TH JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 23407 of 2005(J) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ K.J.JOLLY, KALATHIL VEETTEL, VADUTHALA, COCHIN-23. BY ADV. SRI.FRANCIS JOSEPH KURISINKAL RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. SECRETARY, CORPORATION OF COCHIN, ERNAKULAM, COCHIN-11. 2. REVENUE OFFICER, REVENUE SECTION OFFICE OF THE CORPORATION COCHIN, COCHIN-11. ADV. SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN, SC.COCHIN CORPN. FOR R1&2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: TRUE COPY OF ORDER DT.13.4.04 OF R2. P2: TRUE COPY OF RECEIPT OF PAYMENT OF RS.13000/- DT.13.4.04 MADE BY PETITIONER. P3: TRUE COPY OF DEMAND NOTICE DT.17.5.05. P4: TRUE COPY OF RECEIPT OF PAYMENT FOR RS.5000/- DT.15.7.05 MADE BY PETITIONER. P5: TRUE COPY OF NOTICE DT.16.7.05 ISSUED BY R2. P6: TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION FILED BY PETITIONER TO R1 DT.25.7.2005. TRUE COPY PA TO JUDGE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. .................................................................... W.P.(C) No.23407 of 2005 .................................................................... Dated this the 6th day of June, 2008. JUDGMENT The petitioner is challenging demand notice for recovery of licence fee payable to the Cochin Corporation for the meat stall conducted by the petitioner. It is seen from Ext.P5 that Corporation declined to grant instalment facility to the petitioner for payment of balance licence fee. Since petitioner does not deny liability and the request before the Corporation was to grant instalment facility, I do not think petitioner can now press for extension of time because W.P. itself was filed five years back. If full payment is not made immediately, respondents will proceed for recovery of the entire amount with interest without any further delay. The W.P. is disposed of as above. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge pms