IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 15TH MARCH 2010 / 24TH PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 8288 of 2010(I) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------ K.VIKRAMAN, PROPRIETOR, BROTHERS ENGINEERING WORKS, BY-PASS ROAD, KILLIPALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-8. BY ADV. SRI.P.N.MOHANAN RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. CORPORATON OF THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. HEALTH OFFICER, FORT ZONAL OFFICE, TRIVANDRUM CORPORATION, TRIVANDRUM. 3. NEELAKANTA PILLAI, S/O.KAILASAMPILLAI, T.C.NO.39/1522, KILLIPPALAM, MANACAUD VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. SRI.P.K.MANOJKUMAR,SC FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. -------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO. 8288 OF 2010 (I) -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 15th day of March, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner made an application to the Corporation for licence. That was rejected. The appeal filed was also rejected. The revision filed before the Tribunal was disposed of by Ext.P6 order dated 15.10.2009, last paragraph of which reads as under. In the result, the Revision Petition is allowed in part. The impugned decision No.1(5) dated 5.8.2009 of the Council of Thiruvananthapuram Corporation and the order of the Secretary dated 27.11.2008 are modified as decision and order rejecting the application submitted by petitioner with liberty to file fresh proper application. It is made clear that the petitioner is not entitled to conduct the business without obtaining proper licence for the purpose and he is directed to stop the business if any being conducted immediately until proper licence is obtained for the purpose.” 2. Petitioner did not stop the workshop as directed by the Tribunal nor did he make an application for licence. In the circumstances Ext.P8 notice dated 29.1.2010 was issued by the Corporation requiring him to stop functioning of the workshop. Even on its receipt or immediately thereafter, did the petitioner make an application. On the other hand he submitted Ext.P7 application for licence only on 9.3.2010. It is thereafter that this WPC.No.8288 /2010 :2 : writ petition is filed praying that the Corporation should be directed to pass orders on Ext.P7 and in the meanwhile Ext.P8 should be kept in abeyance. 3. From the facts as stated above, it is evident that there is no bona fides in the request made that until orders are passed on Ext.P7, he should be permitted to function the industrial unit. Therefore, I am not inclined to pass such order. 4. Having regard to the pendency of Ext.P7 application made by the petitioner for licence, it is directed that the Corporation should pass final orders on Ext.P7 within 4 weeks from today. Writ petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/ WPC.No.8288 /2010 :3 :