IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 11TH JUNE 2009 / 21ST JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 12506 of 2009(G) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- T.K. JOHN, AGED 75, S/O. KURIAN, CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT, THOPPIL HOUSE, RAIL RAOD, ALUVA. BY ADV. SMT.AYSHA YOUSEFF MR.V.K.SIDHIQUE SMT.SAJITHA SIDHIK RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. ALUVA MUNICIPALITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL OFFICE, ALUVA. 2. R. MADHAVA KUMAR, AGED 60, S/O. RAGHAVAN PILLAI, KUNNUMPURATH PUTHEN VEETTIL HOUSE, TASS ROAD, ALUVA. R1 BY ADV. MR.V.M.KURIAN, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/06/2009, ALONG WITH WPC NO. 13663 OF 2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs. THOTTATHIL B RADHAKRISHNAN, J ........................................... WP(C).NOs.12506 & 13663 OF 2009 ............................................ DATED THIS THE 11th DAY OF JUNE, 2009 JUDGMENT The petitioners in WP(C)13663 of 2009 challenge a decision of the Tribunal for Local Self Government institutions. That order is Ext.P16 in that writ petition. At the stage of admission, this court stayed further proceedings pursuant to that order and it was made clear that the said interlocutory order will not stand in the way of the Municipality taking any steps pursuant to Ext.P15. 2. Pursuant to that order, the Municipality, acting on Ext.P15 judgment, varied condition No.7 in Ext.P7 decision and the consequential permit. 3. The issue relates to a private cart stand where lorries are parked. There are civil disputes between the petitioners in these writ petitions and their sister and another, who is the petitioner in WP(C) 12506 of 2009. There is a civil court decree regarding the pathway, fixation of gate etc. 4. The impugned Ext.P16 is issued by the Tribunal on two appeals, one filed by the petitioner in WP(C)12506 of 2009 and WP(C)12506/2009 & CONN. 2 the other by Smt.Remadevi, the fourth respondent in WP(C) 13663 of 2009, who is the sister of the petitioners. 5. The application for license was filed by the first petitioner Sri Madhava Kumar and the license was granted. It is stated by the petitioners that the second petitioner Sri Krishna Kumar to whom a parcel of land in question belong, granted a consent to that application. The Tribunal interfered with the impugned license on the ground that the land on which the cart stand is established belong to Sri. Krishna Kumar and Sri. Madhava Kumar and therefore they should have jointly applied. It is, apparently, therefore that both of them had joined to file WP(C) 13663 of 2009 challenging the said decision of the Tribunal. The Tribunal further took the view that the way from the public road into the cart stand should be treated as part of the cart stand and therefore all co-owners who have right to use the said passage as a way, also ought to have been applicants for license, lest which, application is not maintainable. Certain other procedural irregularities, including the failure to provide an WP(C)12506/2009 & CONN. 3 opportunity of hearing, are also found. 6. As it now stands, the Municipal authorities have varied the permit which obliged the petitioner to provide tar surfacing or concrete surfacing for the cart stand and has permitted the licensee to operate, if he makes metal and water soling, instead of tarring or concreting. 7. Having regard to the findings as noted above, and the fact that the licensee, Sri.Madhava Kumar and his brother Sri. Krishna Kumar are challenging the order of the Tribunal, I do not find any ground to modify the interim order already granted. 8. Therefore, pending further orders and final disposal of these writ petitions, the licensee would be entitled to enjoy the license as modified by the Municipality. It is clarified that this interim order does not stand in the way of any party challenging the variation of the license granted. It is further clarified that having regard to the nature of the interim order issued on 15.5.2009, it has to be taken that license is permitted to terminate. Otherwise, I do not find any ground for the learned WP(C)12506/2009 & CONN. 4 Judge to have directed that the interim order granted on 15.5.2009 would not stand in the way of the Municipality taking steps pursuant to Ext.P15. Writ petition ordered accordingly. THOTTATHIL B RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE lgk/15/6