IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE MONDAY, THE 18TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 29TH MAGHA 1929 WP(C).No. 4597 of 2008(V) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ SPENCER'S RETAIL LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE, 30/286, PANICKER FOUNDATION, PETTA JUNCTION, TRIPUNITHURA, KOCHI-682 038, REPRESENTED BY ITS BUSINESS HEAD-KERALA, RAJU MENON, AGED 44 YEARS, S/O. LATE M.R.NAIR. BY ADV. SRI.H.B.SHENOY SRI.B.ASHOK SHENOY SRI.THOMAS P.MAKIL SMT.LAKSHMI B.SHENOY SRI.ABU MATHEW SRI.SOBHAN GEORGE SRI.ANIL KURIAN THOMAS RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. MUVATTUPUZHA MUNICIPALITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL OFFICE, MUVATTUPUZHA. 2. THE SECRETARY, MUVATTUPUZHA MUNICIPALITY, MUNICIPAL OFFICE, MUVATTUPUZHA. 3. KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER, GANDHI NAGAR, KOCHI-682 020. BY SC SRIV.M.KURIAN ( R1 & R2) BY SC SRI.CHANDRAMOHAN DAS (R3) THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, J. ---------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO.4597 of 2008 ---------------------------------- Dated this the 18th day of February , 2008 JUDGMENT Under challenge in this Writ Petition is Ext.P6 order, by which the Muvattupuzha Municipality has rejected the petitioner's application for licence to conduct business in Door No.VI/542A of the Municipality. Two reasons are stated in Ext.P6. First is that the building itself has been constructed in violation of the building rules and the second is that the application is not accompanied by No Objection Certificate from the Pollution Control Board. 2. Heard Sri.Thomas P.Makil, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri.V.M.Kurian, the learned Standing Counsel for the Municipality, and Sri.M.K.Chandramohan Das the learned Standing counsel for the Pollution Control Board. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that No Objection Certificate from the Pollution Control Board is not necessary in the matter of conducting business since the proposed activity of the petitioner WPC No.4597/2008 2 does not involve any manufacturing process. He also submitted that the petitioner is not having any information from the Municipality regarding the allegedly illegal nature of the construction. 3. Sri.V.M.Kurian submitted that it has been found by the Municipality on inspection that the building has been constructed in violation of the building rules and proceedings have been initiated against the owner of the building. He points out that the petitioner is yet to produce the lease deed on the basis of which the petitioner claims to have possession. 4. Having regard to the submissions addressed at the bar, I am of the view that the petitioner has to exhaust his statutory appellate remedy before the Council of the Municipality before he invokes constitutional jurisdiction of this court under Article 226 of the Constitution. Under these circumstances, I dispose of this Writ Petition, without deciding the grounds raised, issuing the following directions: The petitioner will prefer an appeal against Ext.P6 before the Council of the Municipality within seven days from today. If the Municipal Council receives appeal within the time frame WPC No.4597/2008 3 given above, the Council will dispose of the appeal in accordance with law, after hearing all the concerned parties at the earliest and at any rate within within one month of registering the appeal. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, JUDGE. dpk