Dismissed

Unnikrishnan v. Paravoor Muncipality

Kerala HC14 Mar 2007WP(C)/5328/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court held that invoking extraordinary jurisdiction was unjustified. The writ petition was dismissed without granting reliefs, but a direction was issued to the Municipality to decide the petitioner's license application within two weeks and communicate the decision.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed without grant of reliefs, but a direction was issued to the respondent to decide the license application within two weeks.

Unnikrishnan Vs Paravoor Muncipality — Municipal and Town Planning | Kerala HC (2007)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 14TH MARCH 2007 / 23RD PHALGUNA 1928

¶5

WP(C).No. 5328 of 2007(H)

¶6

----------------------------------

¶7

PETITIONER:

¶8

------------------

¶9

R.UNNIKRISHNAN, AGED 38 YEARS, S/O.RAMAN NAIR, RESIDING AT PATTATHIL VEEDU, MOTTAPPURAM, PARAVUR,KOLLAM DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.V.VENUGOPALAN NAIR

¶11

SRI.C.UNNIKRISHNAN (KOLLAM)

¶12

RESPONDENTS:

¶13

----------------------

¶14

THE PARAVOOR MUNICIPALITY OF KOLLAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶15

BY ADV. SRI.B.SURESH KUMAR

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/03/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE .J

¶18

W.P.(C) No.5328 of 2007

¶19

Dated this the 14^th day of March 2007

¶20

JUDGMENT

¶21

The Municipality has filed a counter- affidavit producing Ext.R1(a) which is a letter submitted by the writ petitioner dated 1-2-2007 wherein he has stated that he is closing down his shop. Ext. R1(b) produced along with the counter-affidavit is the notification dated 30-4-1996issued in terms of the Kerala Municipality Act and entry No.69 therein includes sale of fruits. The learned counsel for the petitioner referred to Section 447 of the Municipality Act and submitted on the authority of the judgment in Shaji

¶22

Vs State of Kerala 2004 (1)KLT 118 that in the absence of rules framed by the Government in that regard, R1 (b) notification is invalid. The learned counsel for the Municipality does not agree . He would draw attention attention to Section 575 of the Municipalities Act and submit that though it is true that no rules have been promulgated by the Government under Section 447, the earlier rules will operate. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitS that even as per the earlier 6^th schedule existing earlier , fruit is not an item which requires licence

¶23

R1(a) shows that the petitioner close down the business since

¶24

he was not having licence. He admittedly has applied for a licence

¶25

W.P.(C) No.5328 of 2007

¶26

-2-

¶27

Considering the facts obtaining in this case I am of the opinion that this Court will not be justified invoking the extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction. Without granting reliefs the writ petition is stand dismissed. However there will be a direction to the respondent Municipality to take an early decision on the license application submitted by the petitioner. The decision will be taken within two weeks of receiving a copy of this judgment. The decision taken should be communicated to the petitioner without delay.

¶28

PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE

¶29

¶30

W.P.(C) No.5328 of 2007 -3-

Unnikrishnan v. Paravoor Muncipality

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Unnikrishnan v. Paravoor Muncipality

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Thulasidharan Vs Local Self Government

P.K.Mohammed Vs K.S.R.T.C.

Sudev.a.P. Vs R.T.Office & Another

P.D.Sebastian Vs State of Kerala

Devassia Vs the Kattappana Grama Panchayath

S.Premlal Vs Ksrtc