High Court of KeralaWP(C)/7162/2015disposed of

Baiju.S.S. v. Corporation Of Cochin

2015-03-06Honourable Mr. Justice Dama Seshadri Naidu5 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU FRIDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF MARCH 2015/15TH PHALGUNA, 1936 WP(C).No. 7162 of 2015 (U) ------------------------------------------ PETITIONER:

BAIJU.S.S., PROPRIETOR, TRIDENT ADVERTISING, DOOR NO.33/1840, SHOBHA ROAD, VENNALA P.O., KOCHI.

BY ADVS.SRI.BIJU BALAKRISHNAN SMT.V.S.RAKHEE SMT.PRINCY XAVIER RESPONDENTS:

1. CORPORATION OF COCHIN, COCHIN CORPORATION OFFICE, ERNAKULAM PIN 682 011 REP. BY ITS SECRETARY.

2. THE HEALTHE OFFICER, CORPORATION OF COCHIN, COCHIN CORPORATION OFFICE, ERNAKULAM PIN 682 011.

3. CORPORATION COUNCIL (APPELLATE ATUTHORITY), CORPORATION OF COCHIN, COCHIN CORPORATION OFFICE, ERNAKULAM PIN 682 011.

4. ASOKAN, 'XANCUS', SHOBHA ROAD, VENNALA P.O., KOCHI-682 028.

R1 TO R3 BY SRI.P.K.SOYUZ THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06-03-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

APPENDIX IN WP(C).No. 7162 of 2015 (U) PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE LICENSE CERTIFICATE NO.1699 ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENTG TO THE PETITIONER EXHIBIT P1(a)TRUE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXT.P1 EXHIBIT P2 PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 25-02-2012 ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENTFOR RENEWAL OF LICENSE OF THE PETITIONER EXHIBIT P3 PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE LEASE DEED DATED 01-09-2010 EXHIBIT P3(a) TRUE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXT.P3 EXHIBIT P4 PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE MEMO NO.MOH13/31393/12, DATED 31-01-2013 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P4(a) TRUE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXT.P4 EXHIBIT P5 PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 20-02-2013 OF THE PETITIONER EXHIBIT P6 PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE POSTAL RECEIPT EXHIBIT P7 PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE INTIMATION NO.MOH13/31393/12, DATED 12-03-2013 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P7(a) TRUE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXT.P7.

EXHIBIT P8 PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 26-03-2013 IN WP (C) NO.8523 OF 2013 EXHIBIT P9 OBJECTION DATED 08-04-2013 FILED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT CORPORATION EXHIBIT P10 PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE ORDER NO MOH13/31393/12 DATED 21-01-2015 ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P10(a) TRUE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXT.P10 EXHIBIT P11 PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED UNDER SECTION 509 OF THE KERALA MUNICIPALITY ACT EXHIBIT P12 PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE PETITION FOR STAY FILED UNDER SECTION 509(3) OF THE KERALA MUNICIPALITY ACT EXHIBIT P13 PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 04-03-2015 ISSUED BY THE OFFICE OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P13(a) TRUE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF THE EXT.P13 RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL.

/TRUE COPY/ P.S. TO JUDGE

Dama Seshadri Naidu, J.

------------------------------------------- W.P.(C)No.7162 of 2015 U -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 6th day of March, 2015

JUDGMENT

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for respondents 1 to 3, apart from perusing the record. Since the issue lies in a narrow compass, this Court proposes to dispose of the writ petition at the admission stage itself.

2. Briefly stated, the petitioner, a proprietor of an advertising agency, is aggrieved by Exhibit P10 order of closure issued by the first respondent Corporation. In fact, assailing Exhibit P10, the petitioner is said to have filed Exhibit P11 statutory appeal along with Exhibit P12 stay petition on 03.03.2015.

3. Since the time granted in Exhibit P10 order for closure of the business comes to an end by this day, the

WPC 7162/15 petitioner has approached this Court ventilating his grievance that the appellate authority, the Council of the respondent Corporation, has not considered his stay petition one way or another.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously contended that unless Exhibit P10 is stayed, the very statutory appeal will become an exercise in futility.

5. I find force in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Once a statutory appeal has been filed, especially in the face of a specific time frame in the impugned order, the appellate authority ought to have considered the stay petition on merits and passed orders as it deemed proper, leaving it open for the petitioner to take further remedial measures, if aggrieved. If the stay petition remains unattended to, the very statutory appeal may become infructuous.

WPC 7162/15

6. This Court is averse to arrogating to itself the powers which have been assigned to a statutory authority, more particularly, a quasi-judicial authority. Yet to subserve the cause of justice, it is essential to issue an interim direction only to preserve the cause in the lis until it is actually determined.

In the facts and circumstances, the writ petition stands disposed of with a direction to the third respondent to consider petitioner's Exhibit P12 stay petition as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. It is thus made clear that until the disposal of Exhibit P12 by the third respondent, Exhibit P10 stands suspended. Dama Seshadri Naidu, Judge tkv