IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 20TH MAGHA 1932 WP(C).No. 937 of 2011(N) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ JOSCO GOLD CORPORATION PVT.LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER, BERNY JOSEPH, BUILDING NO.15/80 TO 82, MARKET JUNCTION, NEDUMANGADU. BY ADV. SRI.M.SREEKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. NEDUMANGADU MUNICIPALITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, NEDUMANGADU-695 541. 2. THE SECRETARY, NEDUMANGADU MUNICIPALITY, NEDUMANGADU-695 541. 3. MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, REPRESENTED BY THE CHAIRPERSON, NEDUMANGADU MUNICIPALITY, NEDUMANGADU-695 541. 4. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 001. R1 TO R3 BY ADV. SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN R4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. K.R. DEEPA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/02/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss C.T.RAVIKUMAR, J. ---------------------------- W.P.(C)No.937 of 2011 ---------------------------- Dated 9th February, 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioner is a company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. It has been engaged in the business of sale of gold ornaments. To open a branch at Nedumangadu the petitioner has submitted an application before the first respondent Municipality. It is submitted that the petitioner possesses all the other requisite licences for conducting the business of sale of gold ornaments. The aforesaid application was submitted for business licence on 15.6.2010. However, no decision was taken thereon and no intimation was given to the petitioner with respect to the same within 30 days since the submission of the application. Relying on the deeming provision under section 447(6) of the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994 (for short `the Act') the petitioner started the business. Thereupon, the petitioner was served with Ext.P2 letter whereby he was informed that the application for licence could be considered only on receipt of completion report from the Town Planning Department. The contention of the petitioner is that no separate occupancy certificate was required and therefore, he is entitled to start the business by availing the benefit of deemed occupancy certificate. Subsequently, Ext.P3 notice again reiterating the WP(C).No.937/2011 2 said stand was served on the petitioner. Thereupon, the petitioner has submitted Ext.P4 representation. It is thereafter that the petitioner was issued with Ext.P5 threatening him with coercive steps under section 447 of the Act. Feeling aggrieved by Ext.P5, the petitioner has preferred Ext.P6 appeal before the Municipal Council in terms of section 509(1) of the Act. Along with Ext.P6 he has also filed Ext.P7 stay petition. Pending Exts.P6 and P7 the respondents are threatening with coercive steps. It is in the said circumstances that this writ petition has been filed. 2. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and also the learned standing counsel appearing for respondents 1 to 3. 3. In view of the order I propose to pass in this writ petition I do not think it necessary to consider the rival contentions on merits at this stage. Obviously, Exts.P6 appeal under section 509(1) of the Act filed by the petitioner to redress the grievance against Ext.P5 is pending before the third respondent. Though the petitioner has preferred Ext.P7 stay petition along with Ext.P6 appeal no orders have been passed thereon. Indisputably, an appeal will lie against Ext.P5 and availing the statutory remedy the petitioner has already filed Ext.P6 appeal and it is still pending before the third respondent. In view of the said WP(C).No.937/2011 3 circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the third respondent to consider Ext.P6 appeal and pass orders thereon, in accordance with law, expeditiously, at any rate within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Till Ext.P6 is considered and orders are passed thereon, coercive steps pursuant to Ext.P5 shall be kept in abeyance. Sd/- C.T.RAVIKUMAR Judge TKS // True copy // P.S. to Judge