IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 23RD MARCH 2010 / 2ND CHAITHRA 1932 WP(C).No. 9840 of 2010(D) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- M.T.BHUVANA CHANDRAN, S/O. THANKAPPAN, MANNATHUPARAMBIL HOUSE, MELUR P.O., CHALAKKUDY, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE MR.S.SUJIN SMT.NITA.N.S. RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE SECRETARY, CHALAKKUDY MUNICIPALITY, MUNICIPAL OFFICE, CHALAKKUDY, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 2. CHALAKKUDY MUNICIPALITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL OFFICE, CHALAKKUDY, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 3. THE KERALA STATE HOUSING BOARD, REGIONAL OFFICE, THRISSUR, REPRESENTED BY EXECUTIVE ENGINEER. MR.M.P.ASOK KUMAR, SC FOR MUNICIPALITY MR.A.JAYASANKAR, SC FOR KSHB. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) No.9840 of 2010 (D) --------------------------------- Dated, this the 23rd day of March, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is the owner of a medical shop by name Pullan Medicals. The medical shop was previously owned by Ms.Sherly Wilson. She was asked to close down the medical shop for the reason that the area where the shop was located is a residential area and that the Housing Board had declined to issue NOC for the continuance of the medical shop at the existing site. This proceedings were challenged before this Court in WP(C) No.31677/2009 by Ms.Sherly Wilson. That writ petition was dismissed. 2. It is subsequent to that the shop was transferred to the petitioner, who has now been asked by the 1st respondent Municipality to vacate from the premises. It is stated that on receipt of the notice, the petitioner submitted Ext.P3 representation requesting the Municipality and the Housing Board to complete construction of the shopping complex, which they have already WP(C) No.9840/2010 -2- started, and to allot a room therein. It is thereafter that this writ petition is filed. 3. I heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for respondents 1 & 2. 4. The endeavor of the petitioner obviously is to continue in the present premises till the completion of the construction. Having regard to the fact that the petitioner is the transferee of the licence held by Ms.Sherly Wilson, in whose case, an order requiring her to vacate from the premises was upheld by this Court, necessarily, the petitioner, being the successor in interest, will have to vacate from the premises in question. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that until the shopping complex is completed by the Housing Board, the petitioner should be allowed to continue in the premises presently occupied by him. In my view, this Court will not be justified in passing such an order, which will have the effect of nullifying the orders issued by the 1st respondent requiring the petitioner's transferor to vacate from the premises, which order has been upheld by this Court in the writ petition mentioned above. Be that as it may, having regard to the pendency of Ext.P3 representation, it is directed that the 2nd respondent shall deal with WP(C) No.9840/2010 -3- the said representation without any delay and take appropriate action in the matter. This writ petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg