IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 2ND JULY 2010 / 11TH ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 15711 of 2010(L) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- U.JYOTHIKUMAR, S/O. KRISHNANKUTTY, AGED 36 YEARS, RESIDING AT UPPAMOOCHIKKAL HOUSE, OTTAPALAM. BY ADV. SRI.SANTHEEP ANKARATH SRI.V.C.MADHAVANKUTTY RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE OTTAPALAM MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, REPRESENTED BY THE CHAIRMAN, OTTAPALAM. 2. OTTAPALAM MUNICIPALITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, OTTAPALAM. 3. T.P.RAJAGOPALAN, THOZHUTHUPARAMBIL HOUSE, KOONATHARA, KAVITHA JEWELLERY, MAIN ROAD, OTTAPALAM. ADV. SRI.K.P.SUDHEER FOR R3 SRI.K.K.CHANDRAN PILLAI FOR R1-2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No.15711 of 2010-L - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 2nd day of July, 2010. JUDGMENT The petitioner was granted licence by the Municipality to conduct business in herbal medicinal plants in a room numbered as 8/788. The landlord made alterations to the said room and he was asked to shift the business to another room. The new room was allotted a number as room No.8/781(1). For renewing the licence the petitioner submitted an application. Exts.P1 and P2 shows that the application has been received. But in the meanwhile, the petitioner was served with Ext.P4 notice issued by the Municipality, stating that the petitioner started business in the new room without obtaining licence and therefore, the functioning of the shop has to be stopped. Ext.P5 is the further notice directing to stop the business within a period of 24 hours. It is contended that for the construction of the building, a building permit was granted to the landlord who is the third respondent herein, as per Ext.P6 and the earlier proceedings initiated against the third respondent, was set aside by the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions as per Ext.P7, wherein the Secretary was directed to initiate fresh proper proceedings under Section 406 of the Kerala 15711/2010 2 Municipality Act. 2. Aggrieved by the order Ext.P5, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the first respondent, as Ext.P8. But it is averred in the writ petition that the authorities refused to take the appeal on file. It is in these circumstances, the petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking various reliefs and this Court by order dated 21.5.2010, granted stay of operation of Exts.P4 and P5 for a period of two weeks which was extended later, on 3.6.2010 and 22.6.2010. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Municipality. 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the proceedings Ext.P5 cannot be supported. It was explained by the learned Standing Counsel for the Municipality that the construction of the room in question is in violation of the building rules and the permit issued and therefore the Municipality was compelled to initiate proceedings under the Kerala Municipality Act and the said proceedings are pending. Due notices have been issued to the landlord in the matter. It is therefore pointed out that the conduct of business in the said room by the petitioner, that too without any permit, cannot be supported. 5. It is true that the proceedings under Section 406 of the Act have 15711/2010 3 not been finalised. In the meanwhile, Ext.P5 is issued by the Secretary which directly affects the running of the business by the petitioner. The petitioner thereafter filed an appeal before the Council as Ext.P8. 6. In the nature of the contentions raised by the parties, it is only proper that the petitioner is allowed to contest the proceedings before the Secretary itself by treating Ext.P5 as a notice and not as a final order passed against him. The proceedings against the landlord also are yet to be finalised. 7. Therefore, if the petitioner files an objection against Ext.P5 within a period of 10 days, the Secretary will hear the matter along with the proceedings pending against the landlord and pass appropriate orders after hearing all the parties concerned. Till orders are passed and communicated, the further action pursuant to Exts.P4 and P5, against the petitioner will be kept in abeyance. If the final order passed is adverse to the petitioner, he will be given at least 7 days time before its implementation. The writ petition is disposed of as above. No costs. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) kav/