Kunjumol K.A v. Kothamangalam Municipality

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.ASHOK BHUSHAN & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN THURSDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2015/26TH BHADRA, 1937 WP(C).No. 24027 of 2015 (S) ---------------------------- PETITIONER:

------------------- KUNJUMOL K.A AGED 40 YEARS D/O.AYYAPPAN, KEERANPARAYIL HOUSE, THANGALAM THRIKKARIYOOR PO, KOTHAMANGALAM.

BY ADV. SRI.ALEXANDER JOSEPH RESPONDENTS:

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

1. KOTHAMANGALAM MUNICIPALITY REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL OFFICE KOTHAMANGALAM-686 691.

2. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS STATE SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

3. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, ROADS DIVISION MUVATTUPUZHA-686 661.

4. K.M.SALIM KIZHAKKUPURATHU PUTHENPURA, THANAKALM THRIKKARIYOOR PO, KOTHAMANGALAM-686 691.

R2 & R3 BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. P.I. DAVIS R1 BY SRI.V.M.KURIAN, STANDING COUNSEL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17-09-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WP(C).No. 24027 of 2015 (S) ---------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS ------------------------------------- P1 :

TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 26-3-2015 IN COMPLAINT NO.1686/2013 OF OMBUDSMAN FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

P1(A) : TRUE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXT P1.

P2 :

TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.R4.10109/14 DATED 27-9-2014 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

P2(A) : TRUE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXT P2 P3 :

TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DT 30-7-2015. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS --------------------------------------- NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE JJJ

ASHOK BHUSHAN, C.J.

& K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.

------------------------------------------ W.P.(C) No. 24027 of 2015 (S) ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 17th day of September, 2015

J U D G M E N T

K.Vinod Chandran, J.

The above writ petition is a public interest litigation filed purportedly against the carrying on of the business by the 4th respondent. The Municipality has issued a stop memo against the 4th respondent; which however has been stayed in W.P.(C) No. 26812/2015.

2.

In such circumstance, we are of the opinion that the petitioner, if aggrieved by the business carried on by the 4th respondent, can seek for impleadment in the other writ petition, if so advised.

The present writ petition is closed, leaving open all contentions of either parties.

Sd/- ASHOK BHUSHAN, CHIEF JUSTICE.

Sd/- K.VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE jjj/17/9