Disposed

Maya Devi v. Thiruvananthapuram Corporation

Kerala HC18 Mar 2008WP(C)/3812/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the petitioner challenged the unauthorised tea shop business conducted by respondents near her medical shop without a licence. The court observed that the petitioner also lacked a licence and directed the Corporation to finalize demolition proceedings against the respondents while deciding the pending licence application within six weeks.

What did the court decide?

Directing the Corporation to finalize demolition proceedings against respondents 2 & 3 within six weeks with notice to petitioner and to decide pending licence application for petitioner within six we

Maya Devi Vs Thiruvananthapuram Corporation — Landlord and Tenant | Kerala HC (2008)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 18TH MARCH 2008 / 28TH PHALGUNA 1929

¶5

WP(C).No. 3812 of 2008(D) -------------------------

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

¶8

MAYA DEVI, THYCADU MEDICALS, NEAR PRS HOSPITAL, KILLIPALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.T.M.ABDUL LATHEEF

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

¶12

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶13

RENJITH KUMAR, T.C.NO. 21/47(9), SREYAS BUILDINGS, KILLIPALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶14

SANTHOSH KUMARI, W/O.RENJITH KUMAR, T.C.NO.21/47(9),

¶15

SREYAS BUILDINGS, KILLIPALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶16

SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KARAMANA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶17

BY ADV. SRI.N.NANDAKUMARA MENON (SR.) (R1) SRI.P.K.MANOJKUMAR SRI.D.KISHORE (R2 & R3)

¶18

G.P.SRI.K.J.MUHAMMED ANZAR

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, J.

¶21

W.P.(C) NO. 3812 of 2008

¶22

Dated this the 18^th day of March , 2008

¶23

JUDGMENT

¶24

The petitioner, who is a tenant of respondents 2 and 3, is conducting a medical shop. The allegation of the petitioner is that respondents 2 and 3 are conducting a tea shop very close to the medical shop unauthorisedly without any licence from the Corporation.

¶25

The Corporation has filed a statement, wherein it is stated that the third respondent land lady has made an unauthorised construction and is conducting a fast food (thattukada) in the area in question and that the Corporation has already issued a preliminary order for demolition of the unauthorised construction in which the thattukada is conducted. It is further stated that the licence, which had been granted by the Corporation to the third respondent, is for running a small

¶26

shop for sale of fruits, soft drinks, sweets and biscuits only and there is no licence for fast food business. It is also stated by

¶27

WPC No.3812/2008

¶28

¶29

the Corporation that the petitioner himself is conducting his medical shop without any licence from the Corporation.

¶30

I have heard the submissions of Sri.T.M.Abdul Latiff, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri.D.Kishore the learned counsel for respondents 2 and 3, Sri.N.Nandakumara Menon the learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Corporation and Sri.K.J.Muhammed Anzar the learned Government Pleader for the fourth respondent. The prayers in this Writ Petition are the following;

¶31

i). Call for the records relating to Ext.P1

¶32

to P6 and to issue a writ of mandamus commanding the first respondent Corporation to remove the illegal conduct of tea shop business by the respondents 2 and 3, causing obstruction to the conduct of business of the petitioner by initiating action for removal of unauthorised construction under the provision of the Municipality Act.

¶33

WPC No.3812/2008

¶34

¶35

ii). To issue a writ, order or direction

¶36

directing 1^st and 4^th respondents to prevent the harbouring of goondas by respondents 2 and 3 in the tea shop in front of petitioner's shop 'Thycaud Medicals” for abusing and threatening the petitioner, her workers and also to clear the open spaces for easy accessibility to the Medical Shop.

¶37

The Government Pleader, who was asked to get instructions from the fourth respondent – Sub Inspector of Police, submits on the basis of the instructions that as of now there is no law and order problem warranting interference of the police. The facts situation, which emerges from the statement filed by the Corporation, is that respondents 2 and 3 are conducting thattukada business unauthorsedly in an unauthorised building and that the Corporation has initiated proceedings for demolition of the unauthorised building in which the thattukada is conducted and further that at present the petitioner does not have any licence from the Corporation to carry on her medical shop. Sri.Abdul Latiff submits that an application for licence

¶38

WPC No.3812/2008

¶39

¶40

submitted by the petitioner is pending with the Corporation and the Corporation is not passing orders on that application.

¶41

Considering the rival submissions addressed at the bar, I am inclined to dispose of this Writ Petition itself issuing the following directions:

¶42

i). The Corporation will finalise the proceedings stated to have been initiated against respondents 2 and 3 in respect of the thattukada business, which is being conducted by them, with notice to the petitioner at the earliest and at any rate within six weeks of receiving a copy of this judgment.

¶43

ii). If any application submitted by the petitioner for licence for medical shop is pending with the Corporation, the Corporation will hear the petitioner and take a final decision on that application within a period of six weeks of receiving a copy of this judgment.

¶44

PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, JUDGE.

¶45

dpk

¶46

WPC No.3812/2008 5

Maya Devi v. Thiruvananthapuram Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Maya Devi v. Thiruvananthapuram Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

A.Natarajan Vs Ponnummal

K.Abdul Azeez Vs the Malappuram District Panchayath

St.Paul'S International School Vs State of Kerala

Piravom Grama Panchayath and Another Vs Benny M.O. and Others

Annie Kurian Vs Union of India

Chola Sahida Vs Thrikkariyoor Devaswom and Others