IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 8TH JANUARY 2010 / 18TH POUSHA 1931 WP(C).No. 714 of 2010(L) ------------------------ PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. S.SUGUNAN, AGED 41, S/O.LATE SUKUMARAN, SHIVAMANGALATHU VEEDU, PERUMPUZHA P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT. 2. PRAMOD, S/O.BHASKARAN, CHARUVILA VEEDU, VADAKKEVILA VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.B.PRADEEP RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. ELAMBALLUR PANCHAYAT, ELAMBALLUR, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 2. THE SECRETARY, ELAMBALLUR PANCHAYAT, ELAMBALLUR, KOLLAM DISTRICT. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) No.714 of 2010 (L) --------------------------------- Dated, this the 8th day of January, 2010 J U D G M E N T The 2nd petitioner is the licencee of toddy shop No.TS- 17/2009-10 of Group No.4 of Kollam Excise Range. Ext.P5 is the licence, and the licensed premises, as indicated in the licence, is situated in Building No.EP 1799 (1228A) in Survey Nos .134/14/3/2 & 134/14/2/2 of Elamballoor Village. 2. The petitioners submit that on the strength of Ext.P5 licence, they started the toddy shop and that on the next day, the officials of the Panchayat with the assistance of the local police, closed down the toddy shop in question, and it is contended that such action is not only without authority but is also against Ext.P5. 3. However, it is seen that the building in question was constructed on the strength of Ext.P2 building permit and the plan attached thereto. A reading of the endorsement made on the plan shows that the plan was approved with the rider that “the structure constructed will be used only for residential purposes”. It was on WP(C) No.714/2010 -2- that basis, the structure was constructed and Ext.P4 occupancy certificate was also obtained. Thereafter, the toddy shop in question was established in the structure constructed, which was permitted to be constructed only for residential purposes. If that be so, the use of the building is against the terms of the permit, and if so, the respondents cannot be faulted for having not permitted the petitioners to continue the toddy shop in the premises. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that at any rate, the shop could not have been closed without issuing notice to the petitioners. In so far as this contention is concerned, admittedly, the building permit contained restriction on the use of the structure and the same remains in force even as on date. If so, there is an admitted unauthorised change of user, which is against the terms of the permit, and a notice, even if issued, could not have altered the situation in any manner. Therefore, a notice could have been only an empty formality and its non-issuance has not caused any prejudice to the petitioners. 5. It was then contended that an endorsement on the permit is illegal. Even if it is so, unless the endorsement was challenged before the appropriate appellate forum and got WP(C) No.714/2010 -3- removed, the petitioners are bound by the endorsement restricting the use of the structure. The petitioners have not taken recourse to any such remedies. If that be so, as at present, the question of legality or its illegality does not arise for consideration. 6. True, the petitioners have raised the invalidity of the endorsement in the writ petition. But, however, having regard to the fact that the statute itself provides for remedy to the petitioners, if they are aggrieved by the endorsement, it is up to the petitioners to approach the appropriate authority and seek redressal of their grievance. For the aforesaid reason, I am not persuaded to interfere with the action of the respondents. However, it is made clear that the observations made herein are only for the purpose of the disposal of this writ petition and shall not work to the prejudice of the petitioners in any proceedings, which the petitioners may institute for redressal of their grievances. This writ petition is dismissed. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg