M/S. Hotel Rajadhani vs Jayakumar, (Age And Father’S ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 3270 Ker

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                             PRESENT
            THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH
  THURSDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF MARCH 2023 / 2ND CHAITHRA, 1945
                 CON.CASE(C) NO. 179 OF 2023
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT WP(C) 38617/2022 OF HIGH COURT OF
                             KERALA
PETITIONERS/PETITIONERS:

    1     M/S. HOTEL RAJADHANI
          XVII/645, MUNICIPAL BUS STAND BUILDING,
          POST OFFICE ROAD, KOTTAYAM-686001,
          REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER
          BINITH RADHAKRISHNAN, AGED 44 YEARS,
          S/O. LATE RADHAKRISHNAN.

    2     BINITH RADHAKRISHNAN
          AGED 44 YEARS
          S/O. LATE RADHAKRISHNAN,
          MANAGING PARTNER, M/S. HOTEL RAJADHANI,
          XVII/645, MUNICIPAL BUS STAND BUILDING,
          POST OFFICE ROAD, KOTTAYAM-686001,
          RESIDING AT 'MATHRUSMRITHI' UNION CLUB ROAD,
          KOTTAYAM - 686001.

         BY ADVS.
         D.KISHORE
         MEERA GOPINATH
         R.MURALEEKRISHNAN (MALAKKARA)
         ATHUL V. VADAKKEDOM

RESPONDENT/2ND RESPONDENT:

          JAYAKUMAR,
          (AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN
          TO THE PETITIONER) THE MUNICIPAL SECRETARY,
          KOTTAYAM MUNICIPALITY, P.B. NO. 200,
          KOTTAYAM - 686001.

          BY ADV AJIT JOY, SC.


     THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 23.03.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
 Con.Case(C)No.179 of 2023

                                  2




                          JUDGMENT

Dated this the 23rd day of March, 2023

The writ petition was disposed of directing the 2 nd

respondent-Secretary to the Municipality to consider Ext.P5

application for renewal of licence submitted by the petitioners and

take appropriate decision thereon.

2. When this Contempt of Court Case came up today, the

Standing Counsel representing the respondents submitted that a

decision has already been taken pursuant to the direction of this

Court and communication was pasted on the premises of the

petitioners, as the petitioners were not available. The decision is to

renew licence on conditions.

3. Counsel for the petitioners submitted that no copy of

the decision has been served on the petitioners.

The Contempt of Court Case is accordingly closed, directing

that if the petitioners approach the respondent, the respondent Con.Case(C)No.179 of 2023

shall provide a copy of the decision taken by the Municipal Council

to the petitioners. It is made clear that the petitioners will be at

liberty to challenge the decision taken by the Municipality now, if

the petitioners are so advised.

Sd/-

N. NAGARESH JUDGE ams Con.Case(C)No.179 of 2023

APPENDIX OF CON.CASE(C) 179/2023

PETITIONERS' ANNEXURE Annexure -I CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 30.11.2022 IN W.P.(C) 38617/2022 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT