IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE THURSDAY, THE 13TH MARCH 2008 / 23RD PHALGUNA 1929 WP(C).No. 7589 of 2008(C) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ IBRAHIMKUTTY, S/O.POOKUNJU, AGED 56 YEARS, PLAMOOTTIL VEEDU, PANDRAND MURI, PAZHAYATTINKUZHY, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.K.S.MANU (PUNUKKONNOOR) SRI.P.SREEKUMAR RESPONDENTS: ------------- THE KOLLAM CORPORATION, KOLLAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. BY SRI.M.K.CHANDRAMOHAN DAS, SC, KOLLAM CORP. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(c).No. 7589 OF 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 13th day of March, 2008 JUDGMENT A statement has been filed by the Corporation wherein it is claimed that a notice was issued to the petitioner to which the petitioner had submitted his reply. It is considering that reply that the decision was taken by the Corporation to cancel the licence which had been issued to the petitioner. It is accordingly contended that the petitioner's argument that it is without hearing him that his licence was cancelled is not right. 2. Heard the submissions of Sri. P.Sreekumar, counsel for the petitioner and those of Sri.M.K.Chandramohandas, standing counsel for the Corporation. Sri.P.Sreekumar submits that till this moment the decision of the Secretary of the Corporation to cancel the licence has not been communicated to the petitioner at all. Ext.P5 is only a notice by which the petitioner is informed that a decision has been taken by the Secretary for cancelling the licence. Under Ext.P5 after informing WPC.No.7589/08 2 the petitioner in regard to that decision, the petitioner is directed to close the factory under intimation to the Corporation. It is not seriously disputed before me that the decision of the Secretary of the Corporation to cancel the licence has been communicated to the petitioner. What has been communicated to the petitioner is only an intimation regarding the said decision. I therefore dispose of the writ petition itself directing the respondent to communicate to the petitioner the decision referred to in Ext.P5 within ten days from today. Once the petitioner receives the order, it is open to the petitioner to invoke his statutory remedies against that decision. Considering the above directions, the interim order passed by this court will continue for a period of one month from today. PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE JUDGE sv. WPC.No.7589/08 2