V K JOHNY Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is challenging Ext.P6 building permit issued by the Secretary of the 3rd respondent Grama Panchayat in favour of respondents 5 and 6. Further relief sought for is to prohibit respondents 1 to 4 from granting Bar Hotel classification and Bar licence to respondents 5 and 6. Inter alia the petitioner is also seeking a direction for consideration of Extst.P7 to P10 representations.

(2.) AVERMENTS in the writ petition are to the effect that, the petitioner had filed a civil suit against the 7th respondent before the Munsiff Court, Aluva as OS.No.32/2009, challenging the issuance of a Bar licence to a Three Star hotel established under the name and style 'Hotel Aramana' . It is contended that Bar licence was issued ignoring Ext.P1 resolution adopted by the 3rd respondent Grama Panchayat, requesting the Excise authorities not to grant licence without permission of the Grama Panchayat. But the 7th respondent approached this court and obtained Ext.P2 judgment, without impleading the petitioner. In Ext.P2 thi court directed Excise authorities to consider and dispose of the application for Bar licence. Eventhough the Bar licence granted to the 7th respondent was challenged by the petitioner in WP (c). No.17299/2009, in Ext.P3 judgment this court disposed of the case with a clarification that if the suit is ultimately decided against the 7th respondent then the FL3 licence also may have to be regulated based on the decision of the civil court. The civil court was directed to decide the issue untramelled by any observations contained in that judgment. The petitioner had produced Ext.P5 copy of the report submitted by the Advocate Commissioner in the civil suit, which according to him will indicate that the 7th respondent had violated provisions of the Building Rules in obtaining permit for construction of the building of the hotel.

(3.) HEARD; the petitioner himself who appeared in person, learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of respondents 1 to 3 and counsel appearing for the party respondents. While considering the rival contentions I take note of the fact that the challenge against Ext.P6 building permit cannot be entertained in this writ petition. Apart from the vague statement that the building is constructed in violation of various provisions of the Building Rules, the petitioner has not specifically pointed out any violations with respect to the construction. Even assuming that the petitioner has got any valid challenge with respect to Ext.P6, there is a definite statutory remedy provided under the provisions of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act. The writ petition filed without resorting to such remedy cannot be entertained. It is evident that the 5th respondent had obtained all requisite licences, consents and permits for conduct of a Hotel and Restaurant in the building in question. Petitioner's apprehension is that Excise authorities as well as the 4th respondent may grant classification and Bar licence to the said building. It is evident that the petitioner had submitted Ext.P7 representation before the 4th respondent. Exhibits P8 to P10 representations were submitted before respondents 1 and 2, objecting grant of FL 3 licence to the Hotel owned by respondents 5 and 6. I do not find any reason to presume that, if respondents 1, 2 and 4 had received the representations of the petitioner they will fail to consider the objections raised. If those representations are actually received by the authorities concerned, the respondents 2 and 4 will take note of the objections raised in those representations against grant of licence. Therefore the writ petition is disposed of directing respondents 2 and 4 to consider the objections of the petitioner contained in Exts.P7 to P10, if those representations were already received, before granting any classification or Bar licence to respondents 5 and 6, if not already granted.