IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 27TH AUGUST 2009 / 5TH BHADRA 1931 WP(C).No. 24114 of 2009(H) ----------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ T.P.RAMLA, AGED 66 YEARS, W/O.SRI.MAMMOO, PATTOTHIL HOUSE, THALASSERRY. BY ADVS. MR.BABU KARUKAPADATH, SMT.M.A.VAHEEDA BABU, MR.JAGAN ABRAHAM M.GEORGE, MR.K.A.NOUSHAD, MR.P.G.PRAMOD. RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. CORPORATION OF KOCHI, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, ERNAKULAM. 2. COUNCIL OF THE CORPORATION OF KOCHI, ERNAKULAM REPRESENTED BY THE MAYOR. 3. HEALTH INSPECTOR, KALOOR CIRCLE, CORPORATION OF KOCHI, KALOOR. 4. C.J.BENEDICT & BENNY, S/O.LATE C.J.JOHN, RESIDING AT CHAMMANICODATH HOUSE, KALOOR, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. MR. RAMESH BABU, SC, KOCHI CORPN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.24114/2009 H APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE RECEIPT DTD. 4/04/006 EVIDENCING THE PAYMENT OF LICENSE FEE FOR CONDUCTING HOTEL AND C CLASS SHOP IN THE PREMISES. P2: COPY OF THE NOTICE NO.MOH 15 13643/2005 DTD. 6/06/2005 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT INFORMING THE TENANT THAT THE LICENSE FOR CONDUCTING THE HOTEL BUSINESS WAS CANCELLED SINCE THE BUILDING WAS IN A DILAPIDATED CONDITION. P3: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD. 28/09/2007 IN WPC.NO.11176/2007 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT. P4: COPY OF NOTICE NO.MOH 15 13643/2005 DTD.23/06/2008 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. P5: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD. 20/08/2008 IN WPC.NO.23516/2008 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. P6: COPY OF THE NOTICE DTD. 17/03/2009 ISSUED BY THE CORPORATION. P7: COPY OF JUDGMENT DTD. 30/03/2009 IN WPC.NO.4953/2009. P8: COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL DTD. 15/04/2009 FILED BY THE PETITIONER. P9: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD. 24/04/2009 IN WPC.NO.12458/2009 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. P10: COPY OF THE NOTICE DTD. 14/08/2008 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. P11; COPY OF THE CAVEAT O.P. SAID TO HAVE BEEN FILED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT BEFORE THE HON'BLE MUNSIFF'S COURT, ERNAKULAM. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J ........................................... WP(C).NO. 24114 OF 2009 ............................................ DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2009 JUDGMENT Following the earlier judgments, the petitioner's appeal was to be considered by the Council for the Cochin Corporation. That appeal was considered. Even according to the petitioner, further steps were being taken to demolish the building in question. She came to this court saying that she was not given a copy of the order. Now the learned counsel for the Corporation has given to the learned counsel for the petitioner, a copy of the order. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that the said copy is an unsigned version. The counsel for the Corporation would state that communications issued to the petitioner is returned unserved. Whatever that be, on the petitioner producing a copy of this judgment, the Corporation will issue to the petitioner a duly authenticated copy of the order passed by the Council on appeal of the petitioner. Enabling the petitioner to challenge the said order, if aggrieved, the demolition proceedings will stand suspended for a further period of three weeks. However, without any due licence to run the shop, the petitioner will not be permitted to carry on any activity in the premises in question. Wpc 24114/2009 2 This judgment is being issued after this court has perused the photographs relating to the structure in question, as shown by the learned counsel for the Corporation. 2. The aforesaid having been dictated by me, the learned counsel for the petitioner showed yet another judgment dated 5.10.2005, which is not even placed in the writ petition. That judgment is shown to place the contention that the petitioner was permitted to continue to run the activities in the shop room. I am not persuaded to act on that judgment for two reasons. The photographs, though not on record, perused by me, as offered by the learned counsel for the Corporation, categorically show that the structure in question may be unfit for carrying on any hotel activity where food for human consumption is to be prepared. It is also clarified that the views expressed in this judgment are prima facie, for the purpose of this judgment, and not to bind the petitioner in any further proceedings. Issue copy today itself. THOTTATHIL B RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE lgk/27/8