IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE MONDAY, THE 24TH MARCH 2008 / 4TH CHAITHRA 1930 WP(C).No. 35228 of 2007(R) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ 1. P.PRAKASH, BUNK NO.C4, THIRUVANGAD AGENCY, NEAR MUNICIPAL BUS STAND, KANNUR. 2. P.MANOJ, BUNK NO.A 19, NEAR MUNICIPAL BUS STAND, KANNUR. BY ADV. SRI.A.MOHAMED MUSTAQUE SRI.KAUSER EDAPPAGATH RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE SECRETARY, KANNUR MUNICIPALITY, KANNUR - 670001. 2. THE KANNUR MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, KANNUR – 670001. 3. P.V.GOPALAN, S/O KOTTAN, AGED 60 YEARS, LOTTERY SALES, PUTHENVEETTIL HOUSE, KODCHIRA – OO, KADAMBUR AMSOM,KANNUR DISTRICT. 4. P.RAVEENDRAN, S/O. ACHUTHAN, AGED 58 YEARS, LOTERY SALES, MAVILAVEETTIL HOSUE, CHELORA, PO-MOWNCHERRY, KANNUR DISTRICT. (ADDLR3 AND R4 ARE IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER IN I.A.16225/2007 DATED 5.12.2007) SRI.K.K.CHANDRAN PILLAI (SC FOR R1 & R2) BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM (R3 & R4) SRI.V.M.KURIAN SRI.MATHEW B. KURIAN SRI.K.T.THOMAS THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, J. ---------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO. 35228 of 2007 ---------------------------------- Dated this the 24th day of March , 2008 JUDGMENT I have heard the submissions of Sri. A.Mohamed Mustaque the learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri.V.M.Kurian, the learned Standing Counsel for the Municipality and Sri. George Poonthottam, appearing for the party respondents, who have got themselves subsequently impleaded. 2. Assailing Ext.P2, Sri.Mohamed Mustaque submits that Ext.P2 amounts to review of Ext.P1, which is a decision taken by the Council. The Secretary has no authority to issue Ext.P2. The best that could have been done by the Secretary on receiving advice from the Standing Counsel was to place the advice before the Council and alert the Council about the necessity of reviewing of Ext.P1. Instead of doing that, the Secretary has issued Ext.P2, which is outside his jurisdictional competence. 3. I will observe that the above submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is attractive at least technically. But, WPC No.35228/2007 2 as rightly submitted by the Standing Counsel for the Municipality, it is always open to the petitioners to prefer an appeal against Ext. P2 before the Council. I dispose of this writ petition relegating the petitioners to their remedy by way of appeal to the Municipality's Council. If the Council receives appeal against Ext.P2 from the petitioners within two weeks of the petitioners receiving a copy of this judgment, the Council will dispose of the appeal after hearing the petitioners and the party respondents. It is always open to the petitioners to move the Civil Court itself for appropriate modification of the injunction order. Considering the above directions, there will be a further direction that the interim order issued by this court will continue for a further period of one month from today. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, JUDGE. dpk