CHAIRMAN THYKKATTU DEVASWOM TRUST Vs. SHAMEER.P.S

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ appeal is against an interim order passed by the learned Single Judge in a writ petition. The learned Counsel for the appellant submits that by the interim order, the petitioner/1st respondent has been permitted to continue his business in vegetables and fruits despite the Corporation having revoked his D& O licence. The revocation has come into effect and the consequential order of stoppage of business as per Ext.P14 and P15 have been challenged in the writ petition from which the appeal arise. The learned Counsel for the 1st respondent submits that the revocation order produced as Ext.P10, is challenged in W.P (C) No. 23016/2020. We also notice from the order impugned in the W.P. (C) that there are a number of writ petitions pending between the parties and the litigation has a chequered past. We hence called for the writ petitions also for hearing to have a quietus in the matter.

(2.) It is seen that the 1st respondent was carrying on a business in vegetables and a cold storage as per Ext.P2 D& O licence. The appellant who was in management of a temple was concerned with the desecration of the temple premises with the waste generated from the business of cold storage conducted by the 1st respondent. The appellant filed a writ petition in which Ext.P4 judgment was passed. It was directed that the competent authority of the Corporation would consider the objections raised by the appellant and decide upon the renewal of licence sought for and the complaint raised of business being carried without a proper D& O licence would also be looked into. Pursuant to Ext.P4 judgment Ext.P5 was passed directing stoppage of the business conducted by the 1st respondent.

(3.) The said order of stoppage was challenged by the 1st respondent in W.P (C) No.9984 of 2020 which was heard along with another writ petition, wherein a similar order was challenged by yet another trader and Ext.P7 interim order was passed. The undertaking of the petitioner therein, who is the 1st respondent in this appeal, that he would not conduct any business other than in fruits and vegetables was recorded. As a consequence the premises which was closed down and sealed by the officials was directed to be resumed to the possession of the petitioner so as to enable him to conduct his business. Noticing the objections raised against the functioning of the business, it was also directed that the Devaswom which is the appellant herein, who was not made a party in the above writ petition, be impleaded. We see from the records of W.P (C) No.9984/2020 that an impleading petition was filed by the Devaswom itself immediately after the interim order was passed. The matter is still pending, which according to us is infructuous by reason of the subsequent proceedings.