IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 12TH AUGUST 2008 / 21ST SRAVANA 1930 WP(C).No. 23447 of 2008(N) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ ANTONY A.J., AZHINAICKAL HOUSE, KUDILIL ROAD, SOUTH KALAMASSERY, K.D.P. PLOT P.O., ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.N.DHARMADAN (SR.) SMT.D.P.RENU SRI.S.SATHI KUMAR RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. SECRETARY, KALAMASSERY MUNICIPALITY, (MUNICIPAL COUNCIL), CHANGANPUZHA NAGAR P.O., KALAMASSERY. 3. THE HEALTH INSPECTOR, KALAMASSERY MUNICIPALITY, SOUTH KALAMASSERY. R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. K.R.DEEPA R2 & 3 BY STANDING COUNSEL SRI M .K. ABOOBACKER. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. -------------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) 23447 of 2008 -------------------------------------------------------- Dated: AUGUST 12, 2008 JUDGMENT Heard both sides. 2. The controversy in this writ petition is regarding the renewal of licence for running the petitioner's workshop. By Ext.P3, the Municipality had granted licence to the petitioner for running a workshop in building No.117 of Ward No.32. However, by Ext.P2, the renewal of the licence was declined on the ground that there were complaints from the neighbouring residents. That was called in question before this Court in WP(C) 13398/2008 filed by the petitioner. That writ petition was considered along with WP(C) 12502/2008 filed by a person who apparently had filed complaint to the Municipality objecting to the renewal of the licence. Both these writ petitions were disposed of by Ext.P1 judgment. 3. For the disposal of this writ petition all that is WP(C) 23447/08 2 necessary to be noticed from Ext.P1 is that when the case was heard the Municipality had no objection that the building where the workshop was being carried on by the petitioner was not separately numbered. By the aforesaid judgment this Court directed the Municipality to consider the application for renewal of the licence with notice to the objector as well. 4. It is subsequent to that the Municipality issued Ext.P8 notice to the petitioner requiring the petitioner to obtain number for the building where the workshop was being carried on and also to produce NOC from the Pollution Control Board. Petitioner submitted Ext.P9 reply stating that the building is already numbered and promising to produce the NOC from the Pollution Control Board. While matters stood thus, by Ext.P10 petitioner was called upon by the Municipality to stop functioning of the workshop and that led the petitioner to file this writ petition. 5. Subsequent to the filing of this writ petition, along with I.A.10463/2008 petitioner has produced Ext.P11 WP(C) 23447/08 3 consent issued by the Pollution Control Board, valid upto 30.6.2012, to operate the workshop. Thus, with the production of Ext.P11, the objection that the petitioner had not produced certificate from the Pollution Control Board, no longer survives. 6. During the course of the hearing, the objection raised by the standing counsel for the Municipality mainly is that the building in question does not carry a separate number assigned by the Municipality and that the petitioner should obtain the same. I do not think that at this distance of time, it is open to the Municipality to raise this contention. Apart from the fact that Ext.P3 licence itself shows that the building in question carries No.177 in Ward No.32, the objection that the building did not carry a separate number was not a contention that was taken up by the Municipality when Ext.P1 judgment was rendered by this Court. It is considering the objection raised before this Court on that occasion, that this Court directed the Municipality to take up and consider the application made by the petitioner for renewal of licence. In my view, the WP(C) 23447/08 4 Municipality cannot be permitted to take the objection in piecemeal and if at all the Municipality wanted to raise any objection regarding the numbering of the building, that ought to have been raised before this Court at the time when Ext.P1 was rendered. Therefore the Municipality cannot take this objection any longer. 7. Now that Ext.P11 has been produced by the petitioner, it is for the Municipality to reconsider the application made by the petitioner for renewal of the licence and this shall be done by the Municipality in the light of this judgment and as expeditiously as possible, and at any rate within two weeks of production of a copy of this judgment. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE mt/-