IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH JANUARY 2010 / 7TH MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 1979 of 2010(V) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- T.P.RAMLA,AGED 66 YEARS,W/O.SRI.MAMMOO, POTTOTHIL HOUSE,THALASSERRY. BY ADV. SRI.BABU KARUKAPADATH SMT.M.A.VAHEEDA BABU SRI.JAGAN GEORGE SRI.K.A.NOUSHAD SRI.KANDAMPULY RAHUL SRI.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. MR.S.RAMESH BABU, SC FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) No.1979 of 2010 (V) --------------------------------- Dated, this the 27th day of January, 2010 J U D G M E N T Challenge in the writ petition is against Exts.P14, P15 & P17 orders. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are, that the petitioner was running a hotel in Door No.14/448, which is one of the 12 rooms in a building belonging to the 4th respondent. According to the petitioner, Ext.P1 receipt dated 04/04/2006 shows the renewal of the licence. However, prior to Ext.P1, by Ext.P2, the licence was canceled for the reasons stated therein. An appeal filed by the petitioner was pending and while so, the period of the licence, even according to the petitioner, expired, and his application for renewal was not accepted. It is stated that thereupon the petitioner made Ext.P4 application to the Standing Committee, which is pending. 3. In the meantime, an order of demolition was issued by the Corporation stating that the building is in a dilapidated WP(C) No.1979/2010 -2- condition. That order was challenged before this Court and this Court by Ext.P5 judgment in WP(C) No.11176/2007, set aside the said order with a direction to pass orders in the manner as directed therein. 4. Accordingly Ext.P6, a fresh order of demolition, was issued against the petitioner, which again was challenged before this Court in WP(C) No.23516/2008. That writ petition was disposed of by Ext.P7 judgment again directing that fresh orders be passed in the matter. The petitioner states that in compliance with Ext.P7, Ext.P8 order was passed without notice to her. That order was also challenged before this Court in WP(C) No.4953/2009, which was disposed of by Ext.P9 judgment relegating the petitioner to pursue appellate remedy before the Municipal Council. It is stated that accordingly an appeal was filed and during the pendency of the appeal, yet another order was issued to demolish the room occupied by the petitioner. Thereupon, WP(C) No.12485/2009 was filed, which was disposed of by Ext.P10 judgment directing disposal of the appeal filed by the petitioner, that was pending consideration of the Municipal Council, and further directing that coercive action be deferred in the meanwhile. WP(C) No.1979/2010 -3- 5. Accordingly, the appeal was considered and by Ext.P11 order passed by the Council on 17/08/2009, the appeal was rejected. According to the petitioner, when coercive action was taken pursuant to Ext.P11, even without serving a copy thereof, the petitioner approached this Court again by filing WP(C) No.24114/2009. That writ petition was disposed of by judgment dated 27/08/2009 holding that the petitioner did not have a licence and therefore, the business cannot be continued. The learned Judge has also held that the building was in a dilapidated condition, referring to the photographs that were produced by the learned standing counsel for the Corporation. 6. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment, the petitioner filed W.A.No.1964/2009. When the appeal was considered by a Division Bench of this Court, the learned standing counsel for the Corporation produced a certified copy of Ext.P11 order before the Court. Therefore, the petitioner's main grievance that without serving a copy of the order coercive action was initiated, stood redressed, and therefore this Court disposed of the writ appeal by Ext.P12 judgment dated 08/09/2009 leaving it open to the petitioner to pursue his remedies before the Tribunal for Local Self WP(C) No.1979/2010 -4- Government Institutions. Accordingly, the petitioner moved the Tribunal by filing Appeal No.790/2009. That appeal was disposed of by Ext.P13 order, setting aside Ext.P11 and directing the Secretary to conduct a local inspection and to take fresh action in the manner provided under Section 411 of the Kerala Municipality Act. The petitioner submits that accordingly, the Secretary inspected the premises and issued Ext.P14 order stating that since the place was unhygienic and the business was carried on against the terms of Section 447, licence cannot be renewed. It is stated that on the strength of Ext.P14, the shop was sealed by Ext.P15. 7. Aggrieved by Ext.P14 & P15, the petitioner filed Ext.P16 appeal before the Council. That appeal admittedly is pending. It is stated that on the same day, the Mayor issued Ext.P17 referring to Ext.P11 order, which was already set aside by the Tribunal, and directing that the building shall be demolished. It is in these circumstances, the petitioner has approached this Court. 8. The first grievance of the petitioner is against Ext.P14 and Ext.P15, the consequential order. Admittedly, Ext.P14 is the order passed by the Secretary in pursuance to the directions of the Tribunal in Ext.P13 order disposing of appeal No.790/2009. This WP(C) No.1979/2010 -5- order shows that for the reasons stated therein the licence of the petitioner cannot be renewed. Aggrieved by this the petitioner has approached the Municipal Council by filing Ext.P16 appeal. This appeal is pending. Therefore, as at present, the petitioner having resorted to the appellate remedy, she will have to pursue the appeal and invite an order in the appeal. This is all the more for the reason that to decide the correctness or otherwise of the reasons stated in Ext.P14 order, the present situation will have to be appreciated and factual issues will have to be adjudicated, which can be done only by the appellate authority. Therefore, I decline to interfere with Ext.P14 and Ext.P15, which is only consequential in nature. 9. In so far as Ext.P17, which is also sought to be quashed, is concerned, I notice that this order has been issued by the Mayor mainly relying on Ext.P11 order dated 17/08/2009, which has already been set aside by the Tribunal in Ext.P13 order referred to above. Although the learned counsel for the Corporation has pointed out that Ext.P17 is only an internal communication, fact remains that the internal communication is to demolish the structure, which is occupied by the petitioner. In the light of the fact that Ext.P17 is issued on the basis of Ext.P11, a non-existent WP(C) No.1979/2010 -6- order, I am inclined to think that Ext.P17 cannot be sustained. Accordingly, Ext.P17 will stand set aside, but however, with liberty to the respondents to pass fresh orders, if they consider it appropriate to do so. 10. The petitioner has a grievance that his application for renewal is not being accepted and therefore, there should be a direction to the Secretary to accept his application. As at present, I do not think that such a direction can be issued for the reason that the question of renewal can arise only after Ext.P16 appeal is decided. Therefore, as at present, I am not inclined to pass such an order. As suggested by both sides, it is directed that the petitioner or her representative will appear before the Municipal Council at 11.30 am on 11/02/2010, and the Council shall hear the petitioner or any other affected party on Ext.P16 appeal, and pass final orders in the matter as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within ten days thereafter. This writ petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg