Allowed

M/S.Prabhu Steels v. the Thrikkakara Municipality

Kerala HC13 Sept 2012RP/767/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this review petition, the Kerala High Court deleted a prior direction to finalize proceedings. The court clarified that the impugned order was not under Section 406(1) but was subject to an appeal before the Tribunal. Consequently, the court directed the Tribunal to expedite the appeal and ordered the Municipality to consider a separate license application within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

The direction to finalize proceedings under Section 406(1) was deleted; the Tribunal directed to dispose of the pending Section 406(3) appeal; Municipality directed to consider the license application

M/S.Prabhu Steels Vs the Thrikkakara Municipality — Writ and Judicial Review | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2012/22ND BHADRA 1934

¶5

RP.No. 767 of 2012 (C) IN WPC/10222/2012

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WPC.10222/2012

¶7

REVIEW PETITIONER(S)/REVIEW PETITIONER:-:

¶8

M/S.PRABHU STEELS,AGED 40 YEARS, A PARTNERSHIP FRIM REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, MANOJ PRABHU, S/O.LATE D.V.VISWANATHA PRABHU, 6/953, THRIKKAKARA P.O., KOCHI - 682 021.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.P.MARTIN JOSE

¶10

SRI.P.PRIJITH SRI.ANEESH JAMES

¶11

RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS:-:

¶12

1. THE THRIKKAKARA MUNICIPALITY, THRIKKAKARA, PIN - 682 021, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶13

2. THE SECRETARY, THE THRIKKAKARA MUNICIPALITY, THRIKKAKARA, PIN - 682 021.

¶14

3. M.P.THJOMAS,, AGED 62 YEARS, S/O.M.O.PHILIP, MODISSERIL HOUSE, THRIKKAKARA, PIN - 682 021.

¶15

R1 BY S. SHANAVASKHAN BY JOBY JACOB PULICKEKUDY

¶16

THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13-09-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

LSN

¶18

RP.No. 767 of 2012 (C) IN WPC/10222/2012

¶19

APPENDIX

¶20

PETITIONER'S ANNEXURE

¶21

ANNX A: COPY OF ORDER DATED 11-01-2012 PASSED BY THE THRIKKAKARA MUNICIPALITY.

¶22

ANNX B: COPY OF ORDER DATED 16-04-2012 PASSED BY THE THRIKKAKARA MUNICIPLAITY

¶23

RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURE: NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE

LSN

ANTONY DOMINIC, J.

¶28

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

¶29

RP.NO.767/2012 IN W.P.(C) NO.10222 OF 2012(C)

¶30

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

¶31

Dated this the 13^th day of September, 2012

¶32

O R D E R

¶33

Heard the counsel for the petitioner, Standing Counsel for the Municipality and the counsel appearing for the 3^rd respondent.

¶34

The review of the judgment in writ petition(c). No.10222/2012 is sought for. In that judgment, this court directed finalisation of the proceedings pursuant to Ext.P12 on the assumption that Ext.P12 is an order issued under Section 406(1) of the Municipality Act. A reading of this order shows that this order was issued pursuant to Ext.P13 interim order passed by this court in writ petition(c).No.9974/2012, where this court granted an interim stay of the licence issued.

¶35

Petitioner herein is manufacturing nails and bolts in Door No.6/953 of the first respondent Municipality. By Ext.P12 order the Municipality prohibited the petitioner from continuing the manufacturing and also business in iron and steel. This order does note even make reference to Section 406(1) of the Municipality Act and therefore the assumption that the order was issued under

¶36

:2 :

¶37

RP.No.767/2012

¶38

Section 406(1) and hence a final order should be passed under Section 406(3) is incorrect.

¶39

That apart along with the review petition, the petitioner has produced as Annexure-A, an order under Section 406(1) issued by the Municipality, which was finalised by it as per Annexure-B, against which according to the petitioner they have already filed an appeal No.293/2012, which is pending consideration of the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions. Therefore the judgment is reviewed, deleting the direction for finalisation of the proceedings pursuant to Ext,P12 and it is ordered that the Tribunal shall expeditiously dispose of the appeal filed by the petitioner aggrieved by Annexure-B order under Section 406(3) of the Kerala Municipality Act.

¶40

The other prayer sought for by the petitioner is for a direction to the Municipality to pass orders on the application made by them for licence to conduct business in iron and steel. Ext.P13 order in writ petition(c).No.9974/2012 only prevents the petitioner from continuing the manufacturing of nails and bolts in Door No.6/953 of Thrikkakara Municipality. Therefore, this order does not prevent the Municipality from considering the application made by the

¶41

RP.No.767/2012

¶42

:3 :

¶43

petitioner for licence to conduct business in iron and steel.

¶44

In such circumstances, if as stated by the petitioner, their application for licence to conduct business in iron and steel have been received and is pending, the Municipality shall consider the application in accordance with law and as expeditiously as possible, within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.

¶45

In the meanwhile the order dated 24.4.2012 passed in writ petition(c).No.10222/2012 will remain in force.

¶46

Review Petition is disposed of as above.

¶47

(ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE

¶48

vi/

¶49

RP.No.767/2012

¶50

:4 :

M/S.Prabhu Steels v. the Thrikkakara Municipality

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S.Prabhu Steels v. the Thrikkakara Municipality

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S.Quality Constructions Vs Project Engineering Company Ltd.

Veenus Traders Vs the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals)

M/S.Glaxo Smithkline Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs the State of Kerala

Athira Mohan Vs Salomi

Ramakrishnan Vs P.P.Pramod

V.Sasidharan Vs State of Kerala & Others