IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 22ND MAY 2008 / 1ST JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 13742 of 2008(J) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ K.VIKRAMAN, PROPRIETOR, BROTHERS ENGINEERING WORKS, BY-PASS ROAD, KILLIPALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-8. BY ADV. SRI.P.N.MOHANAN RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. CORPORATION OF THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. CIRCLE HEALTH INSPECTOR, OFFICE OF THE CHALA CIRCLE HEALTH INSPECTOR, TRIVANDRUM CORPORATION, TRIVANDRUM. 3. NEELAKANTA PILLAI, S/O.KAILASAMPILLAI, T.C.NO.39/1522, KILLIPALAM, MANACAUD VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 & R2 BY STANDING COUNSEL SRI.P.K.MANOJKUMAR BY ADV. SRI.N.NANDAKUMARA MENON (SR.) SRI.J.HARIKUMAR FOR R3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/05/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 13742 of 2008(J) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS- P-1:A TRUE COPY OF THE PARTNERSHIP DEED ENTERED BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND SATHEESAN DATED 10-3-1995. P-2:A TRUE COPY OF THE CONSENT OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 19-11-1994 TO RUN THE WORKSHOP IN THE PREMISES. P-3: A TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT EXECUTED BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND SATHEESAN DATED 23/12/2003. P-4: A TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT EXECUTED BETWEEN THE PARTIES REGARDING THE DISSOLUTION OF THE PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT DATED 9-1-2004. P-5:A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BEFORE THE CORPORATION FOR LICENSE. P-6:A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 252004. P-7 : A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 30-3-2004 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT. P-8: A TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 6/4/04. P-9: A TRUE COPY OF THE LATEST PROFESSIONAL TAX PAID 2006 AND 2007. P-10: A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 19/4/2008. P-11:A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 23-4-2008 OF THE RESPONDENT. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS - NIL ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------------------ W.P.(C) 13742 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated: MAY 22, 2008 JUDGMENT The prayer in this writ petition is to quash Ext.P10 notice issued by the 1st respondent Corporation requiring the petitioner to close down his unit as it was not licensed. He was also called upon to show cause as to why prosecution should not be initiated against him. The premise on which the writ petition was filed is that Ext.P5 application made by the petitioner for licence remains without being considered by the Corporation and that during the pendency of such application, coercive action has been initiated against him by Ext.P10. 2. From the averments in paragraph 7 of the writ petition it is seen that the petitioner had earlier approached this court by filing WP(C) 12185/2004 complaining that orders were not passed on Ext.P5 and seeking to stay similar notices that were issued by the Corporation on an earlier occasion. Though initially Ext.P8 interim order was passed in that writ petition, the writ petition was WP(C) 13742/08 Page numbers thereafter dismissed on 16th March 2007. From the above it is obvious that the petitioner had approached this court for identical relief and was unsuccessful. If that be so, it is not permissible for the petitioner to file yet another petition seeking similar relief. For that reason this writ petition has to be held as not maintainable and it deserves to be dismissed and I do so. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE mt/-