IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 1ST FEBRUARY 2011 / 12TH MAGHA 1932 WP(C).No. 3130 of 2011(M) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ P.MURALEEDHARAN,MANAGING PARTNER, MANJOO & COMPANY, MUNICIPAL BUS STAND BUILDING, KANNUR-1. BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT,GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THODUPUZHA MUNICIPALITY, THODUPUZHA, REP.BY THE SECRETARY. 3. THE MUNICIPAL COUNCIL,THODUPUZHA, REP.BY THE SECRETARY. R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.K.R.DEEPA R2 & R3 BY ADV.SRI. P.K.SOYUZ THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. -------------------------------------------- W.P.(C). NO.3130 OF 2011 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 1st day of February, 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioner is a tenant in respect of room No.20 of the shopping complex belonging to the second respondent Municipality. Ext.P1 is the lease deed executed by the petitioner on 16.1.2008 for a period of three years and on the strength of the same, he has been occupying the aforesaid room as a tenant. Earlier, the petitioner had approached this Court by filing W.P.(C).No.14116/2010 on being aggrieved by Ext.P4 notice issued by the secretary of the second respondent Municipality directing him to stop the business in selling lottery tickets in the aforesaid room. At the admission stage, this Court granted an interim stay of all further action pursuant to Ext.P5 therein and ultimately disposed of the said writ petition as per Ext.P5 herein. As per the said judgment, this Court directed the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions to consider the appeal preferred by the petitioner in accordance with law. It was also directed thereunder to maintain status quo till the disposal of the appeal preferred by the petitioner. Pursuant to Ext.P5 judgment, the Tribunal considered the appeal preferred by the petitioner and passed Ext.P6 order. A perusal W.P.(C) NO.3130/2011 2 of Ext.P6 order would reveal that virtually the Tribunal held that the Tribunal got no jurisdiction to entertain the subject matter of the appeal in the absence of any decision or order appealable under Section 509 (6) and (7) of the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994. In short, as per Ext.P6, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner on the ground of absence of jurisdiction. Thereupon, the petitioner submitted Ext.P7 application for renewal of the lease deed in respect of the aforesaid shop room before the expiry of the lease period. Ext.P8 is the order passed thereon. The tenor of Ext.P8 would suggest that the Municipality got no objection to renew the same and in troth, permitted the petitioner to occupy the room in question provided he undertakes to stop the business in selling lottery tickets in the said shop. It is in the circumstances that the petitioner challenges Ext.P8 on the ground of incompetency of the panchayat to prohibit the business in selling lottery tickets besides challenging the condition mentioned above, incorporated therein while granting renewal. Admittedly, the petitioner has filed Ext.P9 appeal before the Government under Section 57 of the Kerala Municipality Act to redress the grievances against Ext.P8. In paragraph 5 of the Writ Petition, it has been stated that Ext.P9 petition filed before the Government was numbered as W.P.(C) NO.3130/2011 3 3068/DB/2011. The petitioner is constrained to file this Writ Petition on account of the action on the part of the first respondent Municipality in issuing Ext.P10 notice proposing to cancel the licence issued to the petitioner in respect of the aforesaid shop room pending Ext.P9 appeal. The short prayer made in this Writ Petition is for a direction to the Government to consider and pass orders on Ext.P9 petition and also for a direction to the second respondent not to implement the decision in Ext.P10 pending disposal of Ext.P9. Evidently, as per Ext.P5, this Court directed the second respondent Municipality to maintain status quo till the disposal of the appeal preferred by the petitioner. As already noticed hereinbefore, Ext.P8 order would suggest that virtually the application of the petitioner for renewal of the lease period was granted by the respondents on condition that the petitioner undertakes to stop the business of selling lottery tickets in the said shop. The challenge of the petitioner is only with respect to the decision in Ext.P8 requiring him to stop the business in selling the lottery tickets in the aforesaid shop room. In the said circumstances, without making any observation as to the merits of the contentions raised in this Writ Petition as also in Ext.P9, it is disposed of with a direction to the first respondent to consider and pass orders on W.P.(C) NO.3130/2011 4 Ext.P9 expeditiously, at any rate, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment with notice to the petitioner as also the second respondent Municipality. It is made clear that the petitioner shall not be dispossessed on the strength of Ext.P10 till a decision is taken on Ext.P9. (C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) spc W.P.(C) NO.3130/2011 5 C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. JUDGMENT September, 2010 W.P.(C) NO.3130/2011 6