IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.P.BALACHANDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 21ST MAY 2008 / 31ST VAISAKHA 1930 SA.No.330 of 1995(E) -------------------------- AS.65/1993 of PRL.S.C.,THALASSERY OS.496/1991 of M.C., KANNUR .................... APPELLANTS: --------------- 1. THE COMMISSIONER (NOW KNOWN AS SECRETARY) KANNUR MUNICIPALITY, KANNUR TALUK. 2. KANNUR MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, KANNUR REPRESENTED BY THE CHAIRMAN, KANNUR, KANNUR TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.ISSAC M.PERUMPILLIL SRI.R.ANILKUMAR RESPONDENTS: ------------------ 1. K.MUKUNDAN, S/O KARUNAN, AGED 45, TAILOR, PROPRIETOR- OF ROBBY TAILORS, ROOM NO.T.M.183, 50 STADIUM COMPLEX, KANNUR ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND ALL TAILORS OF KANNUR MUNICIPALITY, KANNUR TALUK. 2. V.K.RAJAN, S/O SEKHARAN, AGED 56, TAILOR, NEW V.K.TAILORS, BELLARD ROAD, KANNUR, KANNUR TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.K.V.SOHAN THIS SECOND APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/05/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.P.BALACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------------------------ S. A. No.330 of 1995 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 21st day of May, 2008 JUDGMENT The appeal is by the 1st and 2nd defendants in O.S.496/91 on the file of the Munsiff's Court, Kannur. The suit was one filed by the 1st respondent for injunction restraining the appellants/defendants by a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction from levying licence fee from the plaintiff who is a tailor for running tailoring shop. The suit was later converted into a suit under Order I Rule 8 CPC and on publishing notice thereof, the 3rd defendant also got impleaded. The suit has been decreed by the trial court and the appeal preferred therefrom before the first appellate court by defendants 1 and 2 was also dismissed confirming the decree of the court below. It is challenging the correctness of the concurrent decree so passed that this second S. A. No.330 of 1995 -2- appeal has been filed by defendants 1 and 2 - The Kannur Municipality and Municipal Council. 2. When the matter was taken up for final hearing, counsel for the appellants submitted that the appeal be disposed of with an observation that the judgment passed in favour of the plaintiff/first respondent in a representative capacity shall not affect the rights of the respondent/Municipality to levy licence fee after commencement of the Municipalities Act 1994 as according to him, such a right is conferred specifically by the Municipalities Act of 1994. It is made clear that if there is specific provision under the 1994 Act enabling levy of licence fee for conduct of tailoring shops, the appellants shall be entitled to invoke the said provision and the decree passed concurrently by the court below in favour of the respondents and others running business of tailoring shops S. A. No.330 of 1995 -3- shall not stand in the way of invoking provisions of the new Act according to the procedure prescribed thereunder. 3. This Second Appeal is disposed of with the above directions. K.P.BALACHANDRAN, JUDGE kns/-