Dismissed

Malappuram Municipality v. Nataraj S

Kerala HC5 Dec 2017WA/1023/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Division Bench dismissed the appeal filed by the Malappuram Municipality against the Single Judge's order directing reconsideration of a cinema licence. The Court held that any reconsideration by the Municipality would be subject to the pending appeal against the landlord's demolition order, causing no prejudice.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed. The Single Judge's judgment directing reconsideration of the cinema licence application was upheld.

Malappuram Municipality Vs Nataraj S — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Kerala HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR.ANTONY DOMINIC &

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU

¶5

TUESDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2017/14TH AGRAHAYANA, 1939

¶6

WA.No. 1023 of 2017 IN WP(C).2192/2017

¶7

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 2192/2017 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 25.1.17

¶8

APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS:

¶9

MALAPPURAM MUNICIPALITY REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MALAPPURAM - 676 505.

¶10

THE SECRETARY MALAPPURAM MUNICIPALITY, MALAPPURAM - 676 505.

¶11

BY ADV. SRI.ESM.KABEER

¶12

RESPONDENT/PETITIONER:

¶13

NATARAJ S

¶14

AGED 51 YEARS, D/O. SADASIVAN, NATARAJ BHAVAN, THANUR, MALAPPURAM-676506.

¶15

BY SRI.K.ABDUL JAWAD

¶16

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05-12-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

ANTONY DOMINIC, Ag. C.J. &

¶18

DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, J.

¶19

W. A. No.1023 of 2017

¶20

Dated this the 5^th day of December, 2017

¶21

JUDGMENT

¶22

Antony Dominic, Ag. C.J.

¶23

aHeard the learned counsel on both sides.

¶24

Malappuram Municipality is in appeal against the

¶25

judgment of the learned single Judge in W.P.(C) No.2192 of

¶26

A reading of the judgment under appeal would show that the respondent had taken a building on lease and had

¶27

applied to the Municipality for licence to start cinema theatres. That application was rejected by the Municipality

¶28

for the reason that the Municipality had already initiated action against the landlord of the building on the ground that he had made certain unauthorised constructions. It is

¶29

seen that the landlord filed an appeal before the Tribunal for

¶30

Local Self Government Institutions and the Tribunal has

¶31

W. A. No.1023 of 2017 -2-

¶32

stayed the proceedings pursuant to the order of demolition. Taking note of the order so passed by the Tribunal, the learned single Judge ordered that having regard to the changed circumstances, the Municipality should reconsider the application for licence. It is this judgment which is under challenge.

¶33

Although it is contended by the learned counsel for the Municipality that the appeal filed by the landlord is still pending and that therefore, the learned single Judge ought not have ordered reconsideration of the application for licence, according to us, the order passed by the learned single Judge, does not cause any prejudice to the Municipality. We say so, for the reason that any order passed by the Municipality on reconsideration of the application as ordered by the learned single Judge will be subject to the outcome of the appeal that is pending. Therefore, we do not think that at this stage, the Municipality should be aggrieved to challenge the judgment

¶34

-3-

¶35

W. A. No.1023 of 2017

¶36

under appeal. We do not propose to interfere with the impugned judgment.

¶37

Appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed.

¶38

Sd/-

¶39

ANTONY DOMINIC ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE

¶40

Sd/-

¶41

DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU JUDGE

¶42

kns/-

¶43

//TRUE COPY//

¶44

P.S. TO JUDGE

Malappuram Municipality v. Nataraj S

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Malappuram Municipality v. Nataraj S

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

N.P.Kuriyakose Vs District Collector, Ernakulam

Kerala Agricultural University Vs Controlling Authority Under the Payment of Gratuity Act 1972

Jojo.K.J Vs the Alway Urban Co-Operative Bank Ltd. 1623

Maya.G Vs Dr.Usha Titus

Somakumaran T. Vs Reema Paul

Shajikumar Vs Vijayalakshmi