IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 12TH AUGUST 2009 / 21ST SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 19106 of 2009(G) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- 1. K.H.MUHAMMED ALI, S/O.HASSAN, ILLICKAL HOUSE, PATHADIPALAM, CHANGAMPUZHA NAGAR P.O., ERNAKULAM. 2. K.H.ABDUL MAJEED, S/O.HASSAN, ILLICKAL HOUSE, PATHADIPALAM, CHANGAMPUZHA NAGAR P.O., ERNAKULAM. 3. K.H.ABDUL SALAM, S/O.HASSAN, ILLICKAL HOUSE, PATHADIPALAM, CHANGAMPUZHA NAGAR P.O., ERNAKULAM. 4. K.H.ABDUL KAREEM, S/O.HASSAN, ILLICKAL HOUSE, PATHADIPALAM, CHANGAMPUZHA NAGAR P.O., ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. MR.RENJITH B.MARAR RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SECRETARY, LOCAL SELF GOVT. DEPT., SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. KALAMASSERY MUNICIPALITY, REP. BY THE SECRETARY. 3. A.K.NAZAR, S/O.A.M.KHADER PILLA, 25/2001-B, ANJIKATH HOUSE, V.M.B.ROAD, PATHADIPALAM, KOCHI. W.P.(C) NO.19106/2009 4. M/S. R.F.MOTORS, PATHADIPALAM, COCHIN UNIVERSITY P.O., ERNAKULAM REP.BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. R1 BY GOVT. PLEADER MR.V.MANU R2 BY S.C. R3 BY ADVS. MR.O.V.MANIPRASAD R4 BY ANIL S.RAJ FOR R4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J ........................................... WP(C).NO. 19106 OF 2009 ............................................ DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2009 JUDGMENT This writ petition is filed by four persons, who claim to be owners of a building in which the fourth respondent is given a leasehold right. Fourth respondent applied to the second respondent Municipality for licence under Section 498 of the Kerala Municipalities Act. On the plea that the application of the fourth respondent is not being considered, this writ petition is filed by the owners of the building, seeking a direction that the Municipality be directed to pass orders on the application. The third respondent is a sour-eye for the petitioners. It was he who had raised objections to the building and user of the building by placing written objections before the Municipality. Therefore the petitioners have also sought a declaration that third respondent is not entitled to be heard in respect of Ext.P1 application. A further direction is sought for by the petitioners, to direct the Municipality to grant licence to the fourth respondent to conduct an automobile work shop. Wpc 19106/2009 2 2. With the passage of time, the second respondent has issued an order in which Secretary has, essentially, decided to grant the licence, subject to certain clearance, which he thinks is necessary, by judicial orders, because the bank has a charge over the property and is proceeding under the SARFAESI Act, which again, is a matter gaining attention of different Courts or Tribunals. Having issued a decision on Ext.P1, relief No.1 has become infructuous. It would be only academic at this point of time to venture on an adjudication as to whether the third respondent had any right to be heard in relation to Ext.P1 application. This is because, third respondent has filed Ext.R3(L) appeal under Section 509(1) of the Kerala Muncipality Act before the Municipal Council. Therefore the question whether he is entitled to sustain such an appeal is a matter for consideration of the Municipal Council, at the first instance, and not a matter on which this court, in writ jurisdiction, would venture to answer. In so far as the third relief is concerned, that is, for a direction to grant licence to the fourth respondent, I am clear in my mind that no landlord can seek issuance of writ of mandamus to compel issuance of licence to a tenant particularly when the Wpc 19106/2009 3 tenant is not seeking any such relief from the writ court. The case as projected by the learned counsel for the petitioners on the basis of the provisions of Kerala Muncipality Act, does not inspire any support for locus to seek such a relief from the discretionary hands of the writ court. As of now, parties have to be left to seek appropriate remedies before the appropriate authorities in accordance with law. No orders called for in this writ petition as sought for. Writ petition dismissed. THOTTATHIL B RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE lgk/12/8