IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.H.L.DATTU & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI FRIDAY, THE 23RD MAY 2008 / 2ND JYAISHTA 1930 WA.No. 1025 of 2008 AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.6000/2008 Dated 03/04/2008 .................... APPELLANT: M.RAJESH , S/O. RAMADHAS, PRINCE WATCH WORKS, SWAMY MADAM ROAD, KANNUR-1 BY ADV. SRI.K.V.SOHAN SMT.SREEJA SOHAN.K. RESPONDENTS: 1. T.K.BHASKARAN, 'SUCHEENDRAM', TALAP, KANNUR. 2. KUNNATHUPACHA KARTHYAYANI, W/O. T.K. BHASKARAN. -DO- 3. THE TRIBUNAL FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4.THE KANNUR MUNICIPALITY REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, KANNUR MUNICIPALITY, KANNUR. 5. THE SECRETARY, KANNUR MUNICIPALITY, KANNUR. W.A.NO. 1025/2008 -2- 6. THE MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, REP. BY THE SECRETARY, KANNUR MUNICIPALITY KANNUR. R1 & R2 BY ADVOCATE SRI. V.R. VENKATA KRISHNA & SRI S. ANANTHA KRISHNAN R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. M.P. SREEKRISHNAN R4 TO R6 BY STANDING COUNSEL SRI K.K. CHANDRAN PILLAI THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/05/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: H.L.Dattu,C.J. & M.C.Hari Rani,J. ---------------------------------------------- W.A.No. 1025 of 2008 ---------------------------------------------- Dated, this the 23rd day of May, 2008 JUDGMENT H.L.Dattu,C.J. The appellant is the 5th respondent in the writ petition. The appellant is a tenant of a building owned by the writ petitioners . The appellant is doing watch repairing business in the rented premises. The appellant states in the writ appeal, that, the petitioners/landlord is trying to evict him from the rented premises, and to achieve that object the landlord had approached the second respondent Municipality for cancelling the trade licence, issued to the appellant, inter alia stating that the building is in a dilapidated condition and dangerous to the public. The Secretary of the Municipality taking note of the conditions of the building as pleaded by the petitioners, has cancelled the trade licence granted to the appellant. Aggrieved by the orders so passed by the 2nd respondent Municipality, the appellant had filed an appeal before the Municipal Council. The said appeal was dismissed by the Municipal Council. Aggrieved by the order so passed by the Municipal Council, the appellant had filed an appeal before the Local Self Government Institutions. The Tribunal by its Ext.P1 order has set aside the orders passed by the Secretary of the Municipality and the order passed by the Municipal Council and further has directed the Secretary of the Municipality to make a proper inspection of the building as to whether the building in dispute is in a dilapidated condition and dangerous to the passers by and also the occupiers of the neighbouring structures and further to see how much portion of the same is to be demolished or to be otherwise W.A.No. 1025/2008 -2- dealt with to prevent the danger and to pass fresh orders. 2. Aggrieved by the order so passed by the Tribunal, the petitioners/landlord were before this Court by filing W.P.(C).No.6000 of 2008. 3. Along with the writ petition, the petitioners had produced photographs of the building to demonstrate the actual conditions of the building and the urgency for demolishing the building so as to prevent the danger to the passers by, the occupiers of the neighbouring building and also tenant who is in occupation of the building. During the pendency of the writ petition, the learned standing counsel appearing for the Municipality had also filed a report of the Secretary of the Municipality. The report so filed contains the details of the dilapidated condition of the building. It is necessary at this stage to state that the Secretary of the Municipality has no malice against the appellant herein. It is also not the case of the appellant that the Secretary of the Municipality has any illwill against him. 4. The learned single Judge primarily based on the report of the Municipal Secretary has come to the conclusion that there is urgency in demolishing the building which is in the occupation of the appellant so as to prevent the danger to the passers by and also the occupants of the neighbouring building. 5. The entire reasoning and findings of the learned single Judge is not just based on the photographs produced by the petitioners in the writ petition but also based on the unbiased report filed by the Secretary of the Municipality who also happens to be an Engineer. 6. We have carefully gone through the detailed order passed by the learned single Judge wherein he has taken trouble to extract the report of W.A.No. 1025/2008 -3- the Secretary of the Municipality in extenso. We have also perused the report of the Secretary. We are fully convinced that the opinion of the Secretary, is totally unbiased and reflects the true state of the condition of the building. In view of the above, we are of the opinion that the learned single Judge was fully justified in allowing the writ petition and setting aside the orders passed by the Tribunal. Therefore, we concur with the conclusions reached by the learned Single Judge. Accordingly, the writ appeal requires to be rejected and it is rejected. Ordered accordingly. H.L.Dattu Chief Justice M.C.Hari Rani Judge ks/dk. True copy P.S.TO JUDGE