IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH OCTOBER 2010 / 14TH ASWINA 1932 WP(C).No. 30658 of 2010(F) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- DINESH MANI, 'ARCHANA', KOTTAPPURAM, PARAVUR, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.G.BHAGAVAT SINGH RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE PARAVUR MUNICIPALITY, PARAVUR.P.O. KOLLAM, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE SECRETARY, PARAVUR MUNICIPALITY, PARAVUR.P.O., KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.R.RANJITH, SC FOR PARAVUR MUNICIPALITY. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.30658 of 2010 ------------------------------- Dated this the 6th day of October, 2010 J U D G M E N T Ext.P11 provisional order issued by the Secretary of Paravur Municipality under section 406(1) of the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994 is under challenge in this writ petition. The main contentions raised by the petitioner is that earlier, a similar order evidenced by Ext.P8 was issued under section 412(1) read with section 428 of the Kerala Municipality Act; that he thereupon filed W.P.(C) No.17433 of 2010 in this Court; that in the said writ petition, the learned standing counsel appearing for the Paravur Municipality conceded that Ext.P8 notice was irregularly issued and the Municipality is withdrawing the same, and therefore, as Ext.P8 notice was withdrawn, the Municipality can issue fresh notice only after affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard. I am afraid, the said contention cannot be accepted. Ext.P8 was styled as a notice issued under section 412(1) read with section 428 of the Kerala Municipality Act. The said provision relates to precautions to be taken in case of dangerous trees. The contents of Ext.P8 would however disclose that the allegation therein was that the petitioner had removed a party wall separating two shop rooms, viz., shop room Nos.XIII/25 and W.P.(C) No.30658/2010 2 XIII/26. After Ext.P8 notice was withdrawn as undertaken in this Court, the Secretary of Paravur Municipality issued Ext.P11 order dated 22.9.2010 calling upon the petitioner to restore the party wall separating two shop rooms, failing which he was informed that a final order would follow under the provisions of Section 406 of the Kerala Municipality Act. It is open to the petitioner to raise all his contentions before the Secretary by filing an appropriate representation and producing materials in support of his claims and contentions. In such circumstances, I am of the opinion that the challenge to Ext.P11 is misconceived and without any merit. Further, I also find no merit in the contention that the petitioner should have been put on notice and heard before deciding whether an order under Section 406 of the Kerala Municipality Act could have been passed. Section 406(1) of the Kerala Municipality Act does not contain any such stipulation. It is only after a preliminary order is issued that the question of hearing the person aggrieved will arise. I accordingly reject the said contention also. 2. The petitioner has yet another grievance that though he has submitted Ext.P6 application for renewal of the licence to run his business, till date order have not been passed thereon. Ext.P6 application was submitted on 26.2.2010. Shortly thereafter, Ext.P8 W.P.(C) No.30658/2010 3 order was passed noticing that the petitioner had removed the party wall separating two shop rooms. In such circumstances, unless the Secretary takes a final decision on that issue, this Court cannot direct the Secretary to issue a licence in respect of the two shop rooms which are the subject matter of Ext.P11 notice. I, therefore, find no grounds to grant the said relief also. I accordingly hold that there is no merit in the writ petition. The writ petition fails and is dismissed without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to show cause why the provisional order evidenced by Ext.P11 should not be made absolute. In the event of the petitioner filing an appropriate representation before the Secretary showing cause as to why Ext.P11 order should not be implemented, the Secretary shall, if final orders have not been passed till date, consider the same before passing final orders under Section 406(3) of the Kerala Municipality Act. Depending upon the out come of the said proceedings, it will be open to him to pursue the application for renewal of the licence. P.N.RAVINDRAN, Judge. nj.