Pandalam Municipality vs M/S. C.S.Alexander
2021 Latest Caselaw 17315 Ker

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                PRESENT
                THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY
                                   &
               THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN
     TUESDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF AUGUST 2021 / 26TH SRAVANA, 1943
                          WA NO. 1067 OF 2021
  AGAINST THE ORDER IN WP(C) 16942/2021 DATED 13.08.2021 OF HIGH
                       COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM
APPELLANT/S:

          PANDALAM MUNICIPALITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS
          SECRETARY,M.C.ROAD JUNCTION, NEAR BUS STAND, PANDLAM,
          PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN: 689501

          THE MUNICIPAL SECRETARY, PANDALAM MUNICIPALITY,
          M.C.ROAD JUNCTION, NEAR BUS STAND, PANDALAM,
          PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN: 689501

          THE MUNICIPAL HEALTH INSPECTOR, PANDALAM MUNICIPALITY,
          M.C.ROAD JUNCTION, NEAR BUS STAND, PANDALAM,
          PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN: 689501

          BY ADV SHRI.K.R.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR, SC, PANDALAM
          MUNICIPALITY


RESPONDENT/S:

          M/S. C.S.ALEXANDER, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING
          PARTNER, C.S.ALEXANDER, CHIRAMMEL VEEDU, MUNDANKKAVU,
          CHENGANNOOR, PIN: 689121

          HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED, REPRESENTED BY
          ITS CHIEF REGIONAL MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICER AT
          TATAPURAM, PB NO.161, ERNAKULAM NORTH, COCHIN, PIN:
          682018


          R1 By Sri. Sashank Devan

          R2 By Sri. M.Gopikrishnan Nambiar


     THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17.08.2021,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WA NO. 1067 OF 2021
                                    2

                                  JUDGMENT

This writ appeal is filed challenging the interim order passed by a

learned Single Judge in W.P.(C).No.16942 of 2021 dated 13.08.2021,

whereby, an interim stay of further proceedings pursuant to Exts.P4 and P6

communications of the Municipality, was granted. In effect, the retail outlet

in question run by the writ petitioner was permitted to function and in the

meanwhile, the petitioner was granted the liberty to cure the defects as

pointed out in Ext.P4 order of the Municipality. On the defects being cured,

the 2nd respondent was directed to consider the application submitted by the

writ petitioner seeking trade licence and pass orders thereon.

2. We have heard learned Counsel for the appellants Sri.

K.R.Radhakrishnan Nair, learned Counsel for the writ petitioner Sri. Sashank

Devan and learned Standing Counsel apperaing for the Oil Company, Sri.

M.Gopikrishnan Nambiar, and perused the pleadings and materials on

record.

3. In our considered opinion, the interim order passed by the learned

Single Judge was taking into account, the prima facie opinion formed for the

purpose of consideration of the applications submitted by the petitioner

seeking interim relief. The appellant has always a course open to file a WA NO. 1067 OF 2021

counter and bring up the matter before the learned Single Judge along with

all attendant documents so as to adjudicate the issues raised in the writ

petition. We do not find any illegality or other jurisdictional error in the

matter of exercise of discretion by the learned Single Judge justifying us to

interfere in the interim order passed. It is also clear from the interim order

that, while the stay granted by the Court is in force, the Municipality is given

the liberty to consider the applications submitted by the writ petitioner after

curing the defects. Taking into account all the above aspects, we are not

inclined to grant any relief as is sought for in the writ appeal.

Therefore, the writ appeal is dismissed, leaving open the liberty of the

appellants to take up all the contentions before the learned Single Judge.

Sd/-

SHAJI P.CHALY JUDGE

Sd/-

A. BADHARUDEEN JUDGE

uu 17.08.2021