Kerala High Court
Asok Kumar A vs State Of Kerala on 25 June, 2025
W.A.No.1478 of 2025 1 2025:KER:45237
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SYAM KUMAR V.M.
TH
WEDNESDAY, THE 25
DAY OF JUNE 2025 / 4TH ASHADHA,
1947
WA NO. 1478 OF 2025
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 13.06.2025 IN WP(C)
NO.21725 OF 2025 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT:
SOK KUMAR A
A
AGED 67 YEARS
S/O APPUKUTTAN, RESIDING AT SHAJI BHAVAN,
PANAYARA MURI, KURISSADI JUNCTION,
NALANCHIRA P. O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
KERALA,PIN - 695015
Y ADVS.
B
SHRI.ARUN SAMUEL
SRI.JITHIN BABU A
SHRI.ANOOD JALAL K.J.
SMT.JESNA MALCOM
RESPONDENTS:
1
TATE OF KERALA
S
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE
W.A.No.1478 of 2025 2 2025:KER:45237
OVERNMENT, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT,
G
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
DISTRICT, KERALA, PIN - 695001
2
ORPORATION OF THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
C
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL
CORPORATION OF THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, OPPOSITE
MUSEUM, VIKAS BHAVAN P. O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA, PIN - 695033
3
HE SECRETARY
T
CORPORATION OF THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, OPPOSITE
MUSEUM, VIKAS BHAVAN P. O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA, PIN - 695033
4
HE MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
T
CORPORATION OF THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, OPPOSITE
MUSEUM, VIKAS BHAVAN P. O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA,, PIN - 695033
5
HE ASSISTANT ENGINEER
T
LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT SECTION, CORPORATION OF
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KUDAPPANAKUNNU ZONAL
OFFICE, KUDAPPANAKUNNU P. O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA, PIN - 695043
6
EALTH INSPECTOR
H
CORPORATION OF THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
KUDAPPANAKUNNU ZONAL OFFICE,
KUDAPPANAKUNNU P. O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
KERALA, PIN - 695043
7
ERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
K
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PATTOM P. O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA, PIN - 695004
8
HE ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER
T
KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, TC 12/96
(4,5), PLAMOODU, PATTOM P. O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA, PIN - 695004
W.A.No.1478 of 2025 3 2025:KER:45237
9
INAYA CHANDRAN
V
AGED 65 YEARS
S/O NOT KNOWN, RESIDING AT CHANDRASAILAM,
THEARIKKAL LANE, MADATHUNADA, MUKKOLA P. O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA,, PIN - 695015
10
INISHA CHANDRAN
V
AGED 38 YEARS
D/O VINAYA CHANDRAN, RESIDING AT CHANDRASAILAM,
THEARIKKAL LANE, MADATHUNADA, MUKKOLA P. O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA, PIN - 695015
RI.T.K.VIPINDAS, SR. GP
S
SRI.BIJITHA UNNIKRISHNAN, SC
THIS
WRIT
APPEAL
HAVING
BEEN
FINALLY
HEARD
ON
20.06.2025,
THE COURT ON 25.06.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.A.No.1478 of 2025 4 2025:KER:45237
JUDGMENT
Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari, J.
Heard on the question of admission.
2.ThepresentintracourtappealfiledunderSection5ofthe
Kerala High Court Act, 1958, assails the judgment dated
13.06.2025 passed in W.P(C)No.21725 of 2025 whereby the
learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition.
3.Theappellanthadfiledthewritpetitionbeforethelearned
Single Judge praying for the following reliefs:
" (a)Issueawritofmandamusoranyotherappropriatewritor
order directing the 3rd respondent to keep in abeyance the
operation of Ext. P9 and ensure that the 10th respondent
doesnotconductthebakeryinherbuildinguntilthedisposal
of Ext. P11 by the 4th respondent within a timeframetobe
fixed by this Hon'ble Court.
(b)Issueanyotherappropriatewrit,order,ordirection,asthe
petitioner may seek and this Hon'ble Court deems fit,inthe
facts and circumstances of the case and allow this petition
with all costs.
AND
(c) Dispense with the filing of the translation of vernacular
documents."
4. The learned Single Judge while allowing/disposingofthe
writ petition passed the following order:
W.A.No.1478 of 2025 5 2025:KER:45237
"T he writ petition is filed, inter alia, to direct the 4th
r espondent to consider Ext.P10 appeal and Ext.P11 stay
petition, expeditiously.
2. Aggrieved by Ext.P9 license granted by the 2 nd
respondent in favour of the 10th respondent, the petitioner
haspreferredExt.P10appealalongwithExt.P11staypetition
before the 4th respondent on 10.6.2024. The petitioner is
apprehensive that the 10th respondent may commence his
business during the pendency of the appeal. Therefore,
Exts.P10 and P11 may be directed to be disposed of
immediately.
3. Heard; the learned counsel for the petitioner, the
learned Government Pleader, the learned Standing Counsel
for the respondents 2 to 6andtheStandingCounselforthe
respondents 7 and 8. In view of the limited relief that I
propose topass,Idispensewithnoticetotherespondents9
and 10.
4. On a consideration of the facts and materials on
record, especially that Ext.P11 stay petition is pending
consideration in Ext.P10 appealbeforethe4threspondent,I
directthe4threspondenttoconsideranddisposeofExt.P11
stay petition, inaccordancewithlawandasexpeditiouslyas
possible, at any rate, within a period of two weeks fromthe
date the respondents 9 and10enterappearancebeforethe
4th respondent. It would be up to the petitioner to see that
notice on the respondents 9 and 10 is served by special
messenger through the 4th respondent.
The writ petition is ordered accordingly."
5. The learned counsel for the appellantcontendedthatthe
learned Single Judge,whiledisposingofthewritpetition,failedto
grantastayofExt.P9licencetoconductabakery,whichhadbeen
granted by the 2nd respondent in favour of the 10th respondent.
Thelearnedcounselfortheappellantsubmittedthattheappellant
had preferred Ext.P10 appeal along with Ext.P11 stayapplication
W.A.No.1478 of 2025 6 2025:KER:45237
for stay of Ext.P9 licence before the 4th respondent on
10.06.2025,andthatthe10threspondenthasalreadycommenced
her business during the pendency of the writ petition. He,
therefore, prayed that the operation of Ext.P9 licence be stayed.
6. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the
respondents vehemently opposed the aforesaid prayer and
submittedthattwoparallelproceedingsagainstthesamecauseof
actionisnotmaintainable.Admittedlytheappealispendingbefore
the4threspondentandthelearnedSingleJudgehasdirectedthe
4threspondenttodecidethesameasexpeditiouslyaspossibleat
anyratewithinaperiodoftwoweeks.Thestayapplicationisalso
pending. Therefore, the judgement of the learned Single Judge
needs no interference.
7. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the
learned counsel for the respondents.
8. On perusal of the relief clause reproduced herein above
aswellastheorderpassedbythelearnedSingleJudge,weareof
the considered opinion thatthelearnedSingleJudgehasvirtually
W.A.No.1478 of 2025 7 2025:KER:45237
allowed the prayers in the writ petition. In such a situation, the
learned Single Judge has not committed any error in refusing to
grantstayofExt.P9licenceuntilExt.P10appealisdecidedbythe
4th respondent. Admittedly, the stay application is also pending.
The learned Single Judge has duly considered the urgency and
directedthe4threspondenttodecidetheappealwithinaperiodof
two weeks, of which one week has already elapsed. In these
circumstances,wedonotfindanyerrorinthejudgmentpassedby
the learned Single Judge.
Thepresentwritappeal,beingbereftofmeritandsubstance,
is accordingly dismissed.
Sd/-
SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI
JUDGE
Sd/-
SYAM KUMAR V.M.
JUDGE
MC/23.6
W.A.No.1478 of 2025 8 2025:KER:45237
APPENDIX OF WA 1478/2025
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure 1
A TRUE
COPY
OF
THEPHOTOGRAPHS
OFTHE
UNAUTHORIZED
CONSTRUCTION
CARRIED
OUT
BY
RESPONDENTS 9
AND
10
IN THEIR
BUILDING
