IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 20TH AUGUST 2008 / 29TH SRAVANA 1930 WP(C).No. 25154 of 2008(T) -------------------------- PETITIONERS: ---------------- 1. MOIDEEN, S/O.KUTTI BAVA, AGED 54, RESIDING AT KODAKKATTIL HOUSE, OTTAPPALAM P.O, OTTAPALAM. 2. BALAKRISHNAN, SECRETARY, OTTAPALAM PEOPLES FORUM, 'SRUTHI', SUNDERA IYER ROAD, OTTAPALAM. BY ADV. SRI.SANTHEEP ANKARATH SRI.V.C.MADHAVANKUTTY RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. OTTAPALAM MUNICIPALITY, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, OTTAPALAM. 2. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, PALAKKAD. 3. SUB ISNPECTOR OF POLICE, OTTAPPALLAM. BY SRI.K.K.CHANDRAN PILLAI, SC FOR R1 GOVT.PLEADER SMT.K.R.DEEPA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. =============== W.P.(C) NO. 25154 OF 2008 T ==================== Dated this the 20th day of August, 2008 J U D G M E N T Ext.P3 is a resolution passed by the respondent Municipality for removing the street hawkers. Exts. P4 and P5 are the representations submitted by the petitioners requesting the Municipality for taking steps for the implementation of Ext.P3. Apparently prompted by Exts. P4 and P5, Municipality has by Ext.P6, requested the 2nd respondent to render assistance for the implementation of Ext.P3. Even thereafter, as according to the petitioners, Ext.P3 resolution remains without being implemented and hence this writ petition is filed with the following prayers. (i) issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction directing the 1st respondent to take effective and urgent measures to remove all hawkers, fruit and vegetable vendors and vendors of other eatables from the footpath of Ottapalam town within such short time as this Hon'ble court may deem fit to grant. (ii) issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction directing respondent 2 and 3 to grant sufficient aid to the 1st respondent for implementation of Ext.P3 decision. 2. Heard the learned standing counsel and the learned WPC 25154/08 :2 : Government Pleader. 3. Since Ext.P3 resolution passed by the Municipality still holds the field, it is the duty of the Municipality to ensure that the same is implemented in its true spirit. It would appear that the Municipality wants to implement the said resolution and that is why it has sought the assistance of the 2nd respondent by filing Ext.P6. If Ext.P6 has been received by the 2nd respondent, there is no reason why the 2nd respondent should not render necessary assistance in this behalf. 4. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of directing that the 1st respondent shall take necessary steps for the implementation of Ext.P3 resolution and the 2nd respondent shall also render necessary assistance as sought for by the 1st respondent in Ext.P6. Petitioner may produce a copy of this judgment before the 1st respondent, in which case, it shall take up the matter with the 2nd respondent and do the needful in the matter. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp