IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 21ST OCTOBER 2009 / 29TH ASWINA 1931 WP(C).No. 29317 of 2009(H) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ 1. N.A.SHERIFFA, AGED 71 YEARS, W/O.A.M.KHADHAR PILLAI, ANJIKATH HOUSE, VMB ROAD, PATHADIPALAM, KOCHI-33. 2. A.K.NAZAR, S/O.A.M.KHADHAR PILLAI, ANJIKATH HOUSE, VMB ROAD, PATHADIPALAM, KOCHI-33. BY ADVS.MR.M.K.DAMODARAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. KALAMASSERY MUNICIPALITY, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, P.O.CHANGAMPUZHA NAGAR, KOCHI-33. 2. THE SECRETARY, KALAMASSERY MUNICIPALITY, P.O.CHANGAMPUZHA NAGAR, KOCHI-33. 3. THE KALAMASSERY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, REP. BY ITS CHAIRPERSON, KALAMASSERY MUNICIPALITY OFFICE, CHANGAMPUZHA NAGAR P.O., KOCHI-33. 4. K.H.ABDUL MAJEED, S/O.HASSAN, ELLICKAL HOUSE, PATHADIPALAM, CHANGAMPUZHA NAGAR P.O., ERNAKULAM. 5. K.H.MOHAMMED ALI, S/O.HASSAN, ELLICKAL HOUSE, PATHADIPALAM, CHANGAMPUZHA NAGAR P.O., ERNAKULAM. 6. K.H.ABDUL SALAM, S/O.HASSAN, ELLICKAL HOUSE, PATHADIPALAM, CHANGAMPUZHA NAGAR P.O., ERNAKULAM. W.P.(C) NO.29317/2009 7. M/S.R.F.MOTORS, REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, PATHADIPALAM, COCHIN UNIVERSITY P.O., ERNAKULAM. 8. M/S.UCO BANK, M.G.ROAD BRANCH, RAVIPURAM, ERNAKULAM-16, REP. BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER. R1 TO R3 BY MR.M.K.ABOOBACKER,SC. R4 TO R6 BY ADVS. MR.V.J.JOHN, MR.JOSE KURIAKOSE (VILANGATTIL), MR.RENJITH B.MARAR, MR.L.RAJESH NARAYAN, SMT.LAKSHMI.N.KAIMAL , SMT.P.A.PRIYA. R5 BY MR.B.RENJITH MARAR R8 BY MR.KODOTH SREEDHARAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J ........................................... WP(C).NO. 29317 OF 2009 ............................................ DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2009 JUDGMENT The petitioners are neighbours of respondents 4 to 6 who have erected a building leased out to the 7th respondent to start an automobile workshop-cum-service station. The parties were before the statutory authorities including the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions and also before this court in different rounds. Ultimately, they stood relegated by the Tribunal to the Council of the Municipality for consideration of an appeal. The Council decided on 13.10.2009 to allow the appeal of the owners and grant permit for installing the machinery. Two appeals were thereby disposed of. According to the parties, any person aggrieved by that decision has a statutory remedy before the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions. The petitioners, neighbours, rushed to this court on the ground that no order has been issued to them. 2. It is seen that on 16.10.2009, this court issued the following interim order. Wpc 29317/2009 2 “The learned standing counsel for the Kalamassery Municipality to furnish a copy of the order passed by the Municipal Council on Ext.P14 appeal filed by the petitioner, on 21.10.2009 and to serve copies thereof to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel appearing for the eight respondent. Post on 21.10.2009 in the admission list. Till then status quo as on today shall be maintained”. 3. With the pleadings of the contesting private respondents in the form of counter affidavit and noting the submissions on all sides, it also appears that a bank has invoked the provisions of SARFAESI Act, in relation to loans availed by the owners. 4. Ultimately what turns out is that the petitioners have to be relegated to seek remedy, if any, from the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions. Having regard to the fact that status quo was obtained by the interim order quoted above, I deem it appropriate that the said interim order continues to be in force for a period of one week from today, to enable the petitioners to move the Tribunal. It is also clarified that this Wpc 29317/2009 3 judgment and the aforesaid interim order will not work in favour of either party before the Tribunal and learned Tribunal will decide on the matter including any application for interim relief, untrammelled by anything contained in this judgment or the aforesaid interim order. To expedite the matters, the learned counsel for the petitioners will ensure that the learned counsel appearing for the private respondents are served a copy of the matter being filed before the Tribunal before it is moved before that authority. It is also clarified that this order of status quo will not stand in the way of private respondents paying necessary fee etc, to the Municipality and the Municipality taking further action to process the permit in terms of the order of the Council, subject to the orders of the Tribunal. Issue copy of the judgment urgently. THOTTATHIL B RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE lgk/21/10