Davis vs Food Safety Officer
2021 Latest Caselaw 14719 Ker

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                 PRESENT

                 THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

         WEDNESDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF JULY 2021 / 23RD ASHADHA, 1943

                          WP(C) NO. 32468 OF 2014

PETITIONER/S:

             DAVIS
             AGED 55 YEARS
             S/O. VARU, KALLAMPARAMBIL HOUSE, IRINJALAKUDA.
             BY ADVS.
             SRI.RENJITH THAMPAN (SR.)
             SMT.P.R.REENA


RESPONDENT/S:

     1       FOOD SAFETY OFFICER
             FOOD SAFETY OFFICE, THRISSUR-680 001.
     2       IRINJALAKUDA MUNICIPALITY
             REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL OFFICE,
             IRINJALAKUDA, THRISSUR DIST., PIN 680 121.
     3       JEEJO VARGHESE
             KALLAMPARAMBIL HOUSE, GANDHI GRAM, IRINJALAKUDA, THRISSUR
             DISTRICT, PIN 680 121.
     4       JIJI VARGHESE
             KALLAMPARAMBIL HOUSE, GANDHI GRAM, IRINJALAKUDA, THRISSUR
             DISTRICT, PIN 680 121.
             BY ADVS.
             SRI.ARUN ANTONY
             SRI.K.K.CHANDRAN PILLAI SR.
             SRI.G.SREEKUMAR CHELUR



      THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON

     14.07.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 W.P.(C) No. 32468/2014              :2:



              Dated this the 14th day of July, 2021.

                                JUDGMENT

The petitioner is the co-owner of an extent of 0.54 Ares of land

in Survey No. 918/1 of Manavalassery Village, in which shop room No.

15/57A of Irinjalakuda Municipality is situated. The property and the

building is within the limits of the Irinjalakuda Municipality. Apparently,

the dispute arose by and between the co-owners of the property after

the death of the predecessor-in-interest of the title. Apparently, one of

the co-owner is carrying own his business of fruits and vegetables,

which according to the petitioner, is violative of the provisions of the

Food Safety Act and Rules and Regulations, and without securing trade

licence from the Secretary of the Municipality. It was, thereupon, that

Exts.P1 and P2 representations were submitted before the first and

second respondents respectively i.e., Food Safety Officer, Thrissur and

the Irinjalakuda Municipality and pending consideration of the same,

this writ petition was filed.

2. The primary relief sought for in the writ petition was to

consider and pass orders on Exts.P1 and P2 representations. The

matter was pending before this Court for the past 7 years. However,

today, when the matter was taken up, learned counsel for the 4 th

respondent sought time to get instructions from the parties. Going

through the reliefs, I am of the considered opinion that the writ

petition can be disposed of with appropriate directions, if anything

remains to be considered.

3. In fact, no interim order was granted in this case. Therefore,

at this distance of time, one cannot visualize that the subject matter is

still at large. Therefore, after having heard the learned counsel for the

petitioner and after perusing the pleadings and materials on record,

this writ petition is disposed of directing the Secretary of the

Municipality to consider any pending complaint before it at the earliest

and at any rate within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of

this judgment after providing notice of hearing to all concerned.

I also make it clear that if in any case the subject issue was

considered on the basis of Exts. P1 and P2 representations, the

directions contained above would stand vacated.

sd/-

SHAJI P. CHALY, JUDGE.

Rv

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 32468/2014

PETITIONER'S ANNEXURE:

EXHIBIT P1- TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 21-11-2014. EXHIBIT P2- TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL

/True Copy/

PS To Judge.

rv