IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI WEDNESDAY, THE 22ND OCTOBER 2008 / 30TH ASWINA 1930 WP(C).No. 16752 of 2008(T) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- BENNY THOMSON, S/O.THOMSON, PUNNELI PARAMBIL, BUSINESS, KUMBADINHAMUKKU, P.O.THAZHEKKADU, CHALAKUDY, PIN-680 697. BY ADV. SRI.K.V.SOHAN SMT.SREEJA SOHAN.K. RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ANGAMALY. 2. THE S.I. OF POLICE, ANGAMALY POLICE STATION. 3. THE ANGAMALY MUNICIPALITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, ANGAMALY. 4. DENNY VARGHESE, S/O.VARGHESE, PALLIPADY HOUSE, ANGAMALY P.O., PIN-683 572. SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BENJAMIN PAUL FOR R1, R2 ADV. SRI.R.T.PRADEEP FOR R3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO. 16752/2008-T APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE RENTAL AGREEMENT EXECUTED BY PETITIONER IN FAVOUR OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 30/05/2008. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE RECEIPT FOR PAYMENT OF SECURITY DEPOSIT OF Rs.3 LAKHS, DATED 30/05/2008. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE RECEIPT FOR REMITTING RENT IN ADVANCE FOR THE PERIOD OF MAY AND JUNE 2008, DATED 30/05/2008. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE RECEIPT FOR PAYMENT OF Rs.45,000/- AS RENT ADVANCE, DATED 30/05/2008. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE RECEIPT FOR REMITTANCE OF D & O LICENCE FEE, DATED 30/05/2008. EXT.P6: COPY OF THE PEITITION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE RESPONDENTS 1 AND 2, DATED 03/06/2008. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Rs/ K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. ----------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C)No.16752 OF 2008 T ----------------------------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 22nd DAY OF OCTOBER, 2008 J U D G M E N T Balakrishnan Nair, J. The petitioner has approached this Court alleging that the 4th respondent is causing obstruction to the running of a butcher's shop run by him. 2. The learned Government Pleader upon instructions submitted that the petitioner do not have any licence. He was running the stall in the market without getting licence from the Municipality. Therefore, objection was raised against the running of the shop. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that recently, the Municipality has granted licence to the petitioner for running the shop. In view of the above position, normally, there cannot be any objection to his running the shop as indicated by the learned Government Pleader. In view of the subsequent developments, the Writ Petition is closed. If there is any problem to his running the shop, he can approach the police and thereafter, if there is any failure of duty from their part, move this Court again. K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE. M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE. dsn