IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 12TH APRIL 2011 / 22ND CHAITHRA 1933 WP(C).No. 11916 of 2011(L) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- P.RAVEENDRAN, KRISHNA POOJA, POOMKUNNAM, THRISSUR-682002. BY ADVS. SRI.K.JAJU BABU SMT.M.U.VIJAYALAKSHMI SRI.BRIJESH MOHAN SMT.DHANYA CHANDRAN SRI.M.V.JOSEPH (ALAPPUZHA) RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. THE SECRETARY, GURUVAYUR MUNICIPALITY, GURUVAYUR, THRISSUR-680101. 2. GURUVAYUR MUNICIPALITY, GURUVAYUR, THRISSUR-680101, REPRESENTED BY CHAIRPERSON AND MUNICIPAL COUNCIL. R2 BY ADV. SRI.P.A.AHAMED, SC. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/04/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: svs C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C)No. 11916 OF 2011 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 12th day of April, 2011 J U D G M E N T This writ petition has been filed mainly for a prayer to issue a writ of certiorari quashing Ext.P5 or in the alternative to direct the respondent to dispose of Ext.P6 in the light of Exts.P2 and P5 with notice and after affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard. The petitioner had applied for licence for running lodging house/boarding house under section 447 (1) of the Kerala Municipality Act. Ext.P3 application submitted for that purpose was rejected as per Ext.P4. Feeling aggrieved by Ext.P4 the petitioner has preferred Ext.P6 statutory appeal before the first respondent. Since, the petitioner has already preferred a statutory appeal to redress the grievance against Ext.P4, I do not think it necessary to consider the contention on merit at this stage. In the said circumstances, taking note of the fact that Ext.P6 appeal filed against Ext.P4 is pending before the second respondent, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the second respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P6 WPC.No.11916/11 : 2 : expeditiously, in accordance with law. At any rate, this shall be done within a period of one month from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that Exts.P2 andP5 are relevant for the purpose of considering the question raised in the appeal. It will be open to the petitioner to raise the contention relying on Exts.P2 and P5 in which event, the respondent shall consider the applicability of Exts.P2 and P5 also. Sd/- (C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) jma //true copy// P.A to Judge