IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 20TH JANUARY 2010 / 30TH POUSHA 1931 WP(C).No. 33865 of 2009(C) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- ERNAD HOLIDAYS (P) LTD., VARANKODE.P.O, MALAPPURAM REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER, JOJO THOMAS, S/O.V.M. THOMAS, AGED 40 YEARS. BY ADV. SRI.V.CHITAMBARESH, SENIOR ADVOCATE SMT.P.G.BABITHA SRI.BINOY VASUDEVAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. MALAPPURAM MUNICIPALITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MALAPPURAM.P.O. 2. SECRETARY MALAPPURAM MUNICIPALITY. 3. THE KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS MEMBER SECRETARY, BOARD OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM ADV. SRI.A.SUDHI VASUDEVAN FOR R3 SRI.SUDHI VASUDEVAN MR.M.K.CHANDRAMOHAN DAS, SC FOR PCB MR.N.ABDUL MAJEED, SC FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) No.33865 of 2009 (C) --------------------------------- Dated, this the 20th day of January, 2010 J U D G M E N T Heard both sides. 2. The petitioner is a FL-3 licencee. They are aggrieved by Ext.P16, a notice issued by the 1st respondent Municipality, which according to the petitioner is without jurisdiction. It is on that ground and also alleging malafides against the Municipality that the writ petition has been filed. 3. However, Ext.P16 is only a notice to which the petitioner has already filed their reply by Ext.P17. Therefore, at this stage, in my view, it is not necessary to decide on the contention raised in this writ petition, as at least at the first instance, it is for the respondent Municipality to decide the issue. 4. In view of the above, this writ petition is disposed of with the following directions. That the respondent Municipality shall take a decision on Ext.P16 in the light of Ext.P17, and taking into account the provisions of Section 447 of the Kerala Municipality Act WP(C) No.33865/2009 -2- with notice to the petitioner and after hearing them. It is directed that until a decision in the matter is taken as above and communicated to the petitioner, coercive action, if any, pursuant to Ext.P16 shall not be initiated against the petitioner. The petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment before the respondent Municipality for compliance. This writ petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg