IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 20TH AUGUST 2008 / 29TH SRAVANA 1930 WP(C).No. 23516 of 2008(Y) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- T.P.RAMLA, W/O.LATE K.P.MAMMOO, MADATHIPARAMBIL HOUSE, KALOOR, KOCHI-17. BY ADV. SRI.SIBY MATHEW SMT.P.A.REZIYA RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. CORPORATION OF KOCHI, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. HEALTH INSPECTOR, KALOOR CIRCLE CORPORATION OF KOCHI. ADDL.R3. C.J.BENEDICT @ BENNY S/O LATE C.J.JOHN, AGED 61 RESIDING AT CHAMMANIKODATH HOUSE, KALOOR, ERNAKULAM. (ADDL.R3 IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER IN IA NO.10613/08 DATED 20.8.08) BY ADV. SRI.K.ANAND, SC, COCHIN CORPN. FOR R1-2 SRI.S.SREEKUMAR FOR ADDL.RES. SRI.S.RAMESHBABU THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. =============== W.P.(C) NO. 23516 OF 2008 Y ==================== Dated this the 20th day of August, 2008 J U D G M E N T Ext.P10 order is under challenge. 2. The controversy in this writ petition is regarding renewal of licence granted in favour of the petitioner. 3. Twice this matter came up before this court on earlier occasions. First was WPC No.17579/05 which was disposed of directing disposal of the appeal. Subsequently, the petitioner again approached this court by filing WPC 11176/07. That case was disposed of by Ext.P6 judgment, by which, decision No.10 in Ext.R3(c) in relation to Ext.P2 appeal therein was set aside by this court. Proceeding further, it was directed that the appeal filed by the petitioner shall be disposed of in accordance with law after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and respondents 3 and 4 therein. It was further directed that service of notice on the parties need be effected by effecting service on the counsel appearing for the aforesaid parties in the writ petition. WPC 23516/08 :2 : 4. Petitioner now contends that without complying with the aforesaid directions in the judgment, Ext.P10 order has been passed by the Corporation. Corporation has no case that notice was served in the manner as directed. However, it is stated that though notice was despatched, there is no proof of even service of notice on the petitioner. If that be so, admittedly, notice has not been served, muchless in the manner directed in Ext.P6 and that itself calls for interference with Ext.P10 order. 5. Therefore, Ext.P10 order will stand set aside and the Corporation shall reconsider the matter as directed by this court in Ex.P6 judgment. In order to avoid delay in considering the matter as above, I direct that the petitioner and respondents 3 and 4 in Ext.P6 judgment shall appear before the Secretary of the Corporation at 11 A.M on 29/8/08 either by themselves or through their authorised representatives. It is directed that once the parties appear before the Secretary as above, the Secretary shall reconsider the matter, taking into account Ext.P7 to P9 as well. 6. It is directed that it will be open to the petitioner to WPC 23516/08 :3 : request the Secretary of the Corporation to furnish a copy of the proceedings dated 18/4/2008 referred to in Ext.P10. It is also directed that the Secretary shall consider the matter as above and pass final orders, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within 2 weeks thereafter and that in the meanwhile, the interim order passed by this court on 8/8/2008 will continue. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp