IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 21ST JANUARY 2010 / 1ST MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 2092 of 2010(J) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------ AJITHA, AGED 36 YEARS, W/O.AJAYAN, PRABHATH HOUSE, KODAKARA, THRISSUR DISTRICT. (PRABHATH MOTORS, CHALAKUDY). BY ADV. SRI.V.M.KRISHNAKUMAR SMT.P.A.ANITHA RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. CHALAKUDY MUNICIPALITY, MUNICIPAL OFFICE, CHALAKUDY, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. TRIBUNAL FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REP.BY SECRETARY. SRI.M.P.ASHOK KUMAR, SC FOR R1 SR.GOVT.PLEADER SMT.K.R.DEEPA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 2092 OF 2010 (J) ===================== Dated this the 21st day of January, 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioner states that investing substantial amounts, she has established a show room for selling Bajaj Motor Bikes in the name and style “Prabhath Motors, Chalakudy”. It is stated that subsequently, the Municipality took the view that the business establishment cannot be continued at the premises occupied by the petitioner for the reason that it was in a residential zone. Aggrieved by Ext.P9 order passed by the Municipality in this behalf, petitioner has filed Ext.P10 revision along with Ext.P10(a) stay petition which are pending consideration of the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions. It is stated that the stay petition is posted for hearing to 9/2/10 and that in the meanwhile, steps are being taken to implement Ext.P9. It is in these circumstances, the writ petition is filed. 2. I heard the standing counsel appearing for the Municipality also. According to the counsel, in view of the admitted fact that the area is a residential zone, the Municipality was justified in issuing Ext.P9. WPC 2092/10 :2 : 3. Irrespective of the merits of the rival contentions of both parties, having regard to the fact that the petitioner's is a running establishment and the consequence of Ext.P9 is the closure thereof, I feel further action on Ext.P9 should be deferred until the Tribunal considers Ext.P10(a) stay petition, which is already posted to 9th of February, 2010. 4. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of with the following directions:- (1) That the Tribunal shall consider Ext.P10(a) stay petition filed by the petitioner along with Ext.P10 revision as expeditiously as possible. (2) It is directed that in the meanwhile, further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P9 will be kept in abeyance. (3) Petitioner or the 1st respondent will be free to produce a copy of this judgment before the Tribunal for compliance. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp