IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 4TH JUNE 2008 / 14TH JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 1175 of 2008(M) ------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- N.K.ELSAMMA, D/O.LATE SRI.N.K.KURUVILLA, AGED 55, C.C.DOOR NO.40/6422, KAMMATH LANE, T.D.ROAD, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI. BY ADV. SMT.R.RANJINI SRI.S.RENJITH RESPONDENTS: ------------------ 1. CORPORATION OF KOCHI, PARK AVENUE ROAD, ERNAKULAM, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE HEALTH OFFICER, CORPORATION OF KOCHI, PARK AVENUE ROAD, ERNAKULAM. 3. K.THANKAMMA, W/O.LATE SRI.MANNATHUNNI PILLA, ROHINI, KARIKKAMURI, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-11. BY ADV. SRI.M.K.CHANDRAMOHAN DAS,SC,COCHIN COPN FOR R1,2 SRI.C.MURALI SRI.A.BALAGOPALAN FOR R3 SRI.S.RAMESH BABU, SC, CORPORATION THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. =============== W.P.(C) NO. 1175 OF 2008 M ==================== Dated this the 4th day of June, 2008 J U D G M E N T The writ petition is filed challenging Exts. P2 and P4 issued by the 2nd respondent. 2. Petitioner claims to be a tenant under the 3rd respondent and according to her, in the building in question, she is running a working women's hostel since 1983. It is her case that when the 3rd respondent took steps for evicting her, she had approached the Civil Court by filing OS 841/05. In the suit, the 3rd respondent raised a counter claim against the petitioner seeking injunction against her. After full trial, the suit was dismissed, but the counter claim was allowed. Petitioner submits that an appeal has been filed as AS No.117/07 and that it is pending before the District Court, Ernakulam. 3. According to the petitioner, in the meanwhile she had applied for a licence before the Corporation and in response thereto, she was given Ext.P1 order dated 15/11/2006. Ext.P1 says that in view of the objection raised by the 3rd respondent landlord, Corporation could not consider the petitioner's application for licence. Admittedly, the petitioner WPC 1175/08 :2 : continued the functioning of the working women's hostel unaffected by Ext.P1 or the absence of licence. Consequently, the Corporation issued Ext.P2 on 9/8/07 requiring the petitioner to stop functioning of the hostel. The reasons stated in Ext.P2 are want of licence and the unhygienic surroundings, which was confirmed in an inspection conducted by the Health Inspector. Petitioner submitted her reply as per Ext.P3, but then Corporation issued Ext.P4 final notice asking her to close down the hostel. It is in this background this writ petition has been filed seeking to quash Exts. P2 and P4. 4. Evidently, Ext.P1 is an order declining her application for licence. This was issued as early as on 15/11/2006. Petitioner did not challenge the said order and hence, has been running the hostel without a licence atleast from 2006. Necessarily, therefore, the Corporation was entitled to issue Exts. P2 and P4 requiring its closure. 5. Since the basic order namely Ext.P1 has become final as far as the petitioner is concerned, Exts. P2 and P4 which are consequential in nature are liable to be upheld. Even in this writ petition there is no prayer seeking to quash Ext.P1 and at any rate even if such a challenge is raised, I would not have entertained it for reasons of delay and latches. WPC 1175/08 :3 : Therefore, since Ext.P1 is unchallenged, necessarily, Exts. P2 and P4 are also liable to he upheld. Thus on merits I do not find anything to interfere with Exts. P2 and P4. 6. Petitioner now points out that there are several inmates in the working women's hostel which she has been conducting on the strength of the interim order passed by this court in this writ petition. With the dismissal of this writ petition though the interim order is also liable to be vacated, since an appeal is pending before the District Court, I feel that the interim order should continue for a short while so that the petitioner can, if so advised, move the Civil Court and seek appropriate orders. 7. Therefore, while I confirm Exts. P2 and P4, I direct that the interim order dated 10/1/2008, which has been extended thereafter will continue for a period of 4 weeks from today, in order to enable the petitioner to seek appropriate orders from the District court where AS No.117/07 is pending. Subject to the above, Writ petition is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC,JUDGE. Rp