IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR FRIDAY, THE 7TH JANUARY 2011 / 17TH POUSHA 1932 WP(C).No. 28 of 2011(C) -------------------- PETITIONER : -------------------- NAZAR A.K., AGED 45, S/O.ALIYARKUNJU, RESIDING AT 'ALSAFA VILLA', MUDAPURAM P.O., KIZHUVILAM VILLAGE, CHIRAYINKEEZHU TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-695314. BY ADV. SRI.A.B.MOHANAKUMAR RESPONDENT : ----------------------- ATTINGAL MUNICIPALITY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PIN-695101. BY ADV. SRI.AYYAPPAN SANKAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Mn C.T.RAVIKUMAR, J. --------------------------------------- W.P(C)No.28 of 2011 ---------------------------------------- Dated 7th January, 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioner obtained permit for construction of a five storeyed building. In respect of the shop rooms in the ground floor the respondent was granted licence. In the ground floor the petitioner is conducting an Internet Cafe in the name and style of `Al Safa Colour Lab', a Bakery and a Digital Studio. This writ petition has been filed alleging the inaction on the part of the respondent in considering Ext.P5 appeal preferred under section 509 of the Kerala Municipalities Act, 1994. The further prayer of the petitioner is for a direction to the respondent to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.25,000/- per day from 31.12.2010 till the shop rooms are unlocked by the respondent. Earlier, the respondent has issued a demand notice dated 24.11.010 requiring the petitioner to remit property tax with regard to AMC XI/1378 for the assessment years 2006- 2007 to 2009-2010. In fact, an arrear to the tune of Rs.1,01,414/- was demanded as per Ext.P2. Ext.P5 appeal referred above was filed against Ext.P3 order. The grievance of the petitioner is that during the pendency of Ext.P5 appeal the respondent has locked and sealed two shops in which the bakery and Internet Cafe are functioning. It is in the said circumstances that this writ petition has been filed. WP(C).No.28/2011 2 2. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as also the learned standing counsel for the respondent. The learned standing counsel, on instructions, submitted that the respondent has not locked the shop rooms in the ground floor for which licences have been granted by the respondent. The petitioner is prohibited only from using the unlicenced portion of the building. In this context, it is to be noted that the petitioner himself admits in the writ petition that some computers from the Internet Cafe as also a Borma of the Bakery are functioning in the top floor of the building. The petitioner did not have a case that he had, at any time, applied for grant of permit or licence for the aforesaid purpose and for using the aforesaid portion. In fact, the petitioner has not made any application for using the aforesaid portion. Be that as it may, in view of the statement made on behalf of the respondent that there is no proposal for locking the shop rooms for which licences have been issued by the respondent, I do not think that any further direction is required to be issued in this writ petition. Therefore, recording the aforesaid submission made on behalf of the respondent this writ petition is closed. However, it is made clear that in case the petitioner is occupying any portion of the building for which no WP(C).No.28/2011 3 licence or permit has been granted it will be open to the respondent to take appropriate action, in accordance with law. Sd/- C.T.RAVIKUMAR Judge TKS // True copy // P.S. to Judge