IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR MONDAY, THE 28TH MARCH 2011 / 7TH CHAITHRA 1933 WP(C).No. 7928 of 2011(M) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- DINESH MANI, 'ARCHANA', KOTTAPPURAM, PARAVUR, KOLLAM – 691 301 BY ADV. SRI.G.BHAGAVAT SINGH RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. THE PARAVUR MUNICIPALITY, PARAVUR P.O., KOLLAM, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY. 691 301 2. THE SECRETARY, PARAVUR MUNICIPALITY, PARAVU P.O., KOLLAM 691 301 BY SRI. R. RANJITH, SC. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 7928 of 2011(M) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 : COPY OF THE SALE DEED No.1259/85 DATED 08.03.1985 OF PARAVUR SRO. EXT.P2 : COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DT. 20.09.2007 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, KOTTAPPURAM VILLAGE. EXT.P3 : COPY OF THE ROUGH SKETCH OF THE SHOP ROOMS. EXT.P4 : COPY OF THE RECEIPTS OF PAYMENT OF LICENSE FEE PAID ON 28.02.2009 AS PER THE DEMAND IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER. EXT.P5 : COPY OF THE RECEIPTS OF PAYMENT OF LICENSE FEE PAID ON 28.02.2009 AS PER THE DEMAND IN FAVOUR OF HIS BROTHER SRI. VIJAYADEVAN. EXT.P6 : COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR RENEWAL OF LICENSE ALONG WITH REQUIRED DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE RESPONDENT DATED 26.02.2010. EXT.P7 : COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 28.4.2010 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE RESPONDENTS. EXT.P8 : COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 22.05.2010 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P9 : COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 28.07.2010 IN W.P(C) 17433/2010 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. EXT.P10 : COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DT.24.09.2010 BY PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P11 : COPY OF THE ORDER DT. 22.9.2010 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P12 : COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DT. 6.10.2010 IN WP(C) 30658/2010 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. EXT.P13 : COPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED 21.10.2010 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P14 : COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DT. 29.11.2010 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P15 : COPY OF THE ORDER DT. 14.12.2010 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P16 COPY OF THE LETTER DT. 09.11.2010 ISSUED BY THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER TO THE PETITIONER. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Kp C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C)No.7928 OF 2011 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 28th day of March, 2011 J U D G M E N T It is in fact, the third round of litigation for the petitioner. The petitioner who was conducting greengrocery in a room bearing door No.XIII/25 of Paravur Muncipality filed this writ petition mainly challenging Ext.P15. The further prayer is for a direction to the second respondent to renew the licence of the petitioner and also re-consider Ext.P13 objection in the light of Ext.P16 and connected records and to pass fresh orders on it after affording him an opportunity of being heard. The petitioner and his brother Vijayadevan jointly purchased a shop room as per sale deed No.1259/1985 of Paravur Sub Registry and got mutated in their joint names. Subsequently, in the year 2006 they decided to obtain separate licences to conduct business separately. Evidently, the shop rooms were, then assigned separate door numbers namely, XIII/25 and XIII/26 respectively. According to the petitioner, real separation was effected by installing separate counters on the eastern and WPC.7928/2011 : 2 : western side of the coomon entry to the shops, lying south- north. Later, the first respondent issued Ext.P8 notice under Sections 412(1) and 428 of the Kerala Municipalities Act, 1994. It was stated therein that without permission they had converted the said shop rooms into one and directed them to restore the earlier position. The same was challenged the petitioner in WPCNo.17433/2010. That writ petition was allowed and Ext.P8 was permitted to be withdrawn. However, liberty was granted to the Municipality, if so advised, to issue fresh notice to the petitioner and in turn, directing to give ample opportunity to defend the action in such eventuality. Later, Ext.P11 order under section 406(1) dated 22.9.2010 was passed by the second respondent. The petitioner was again directed to restore the wall separating the shops that was demolished without obtaining permission. That was challenged by the petitioner in WPC No.30658/2010. It was disposed of as per Ext.P12 judgment. The operative portion of the said judgment reads thus: “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 even t of the petitioner filing an appropriate representation before the Secretary WPC.7928/2011 : 3 : 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.” Thus, it is obvious that after holding the writ petition as without any merit, the petitioner was granted liberty to show cause why Ext.P11 referred to therein should not be implemented in case, final order was not passed by the Secretary. It was further observed thereunder that depending on the outcome of the proceedings it would be open to the petitioner to pursue the application for renewal of the licence. The impugned order viz., Ext.P15 was subsequently passed. As per Ext.P15 Ext.P11 order dated 22.9.2010 was finalised in terms of the provisions under section 406(3). The petitioner was directed to restore the wall separating the said shop rooms uunauthorisedly demolished without proper permission. It also carries a threat of coercive steps in case of failure to carry out the directions in Ext.P15. It is challenging the said order that this writ petition has been filed. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Standing Counsel. The learned Standing WPC.7928/2011 : 4 : Counsel submitted that Ext.P15 is appealable under section 509(6) of Kerala Municipality Act before the Tribunal constituted for the Local self Government Institutions under section 271 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act. Evidently, Ext.P15 is an appealable order. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that Ext.P15 could not be construed as authorised order as it lacks the signature of the concerned Secretary. The petitioner assails Ext.P15 on various other grounds as well. I am of the view that the petitioner has to raise all such contention before the appellate authority, in case, he is advised to challenge Ext.P15 in terms of the provisions of section 509(6) of the Act. In the said circumstances, considering the fact that Ext.P15 is an appealable order, I do not propose to entertain this writ petition. It will be open to the petitioner to challenge the same in appropriate proceedings. Subject to the said observation this writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE jma //true copy// P.A to Judge