E.SALIM v. KOZHIKODE CORPORATION

PIUS C. KURIAKOSE,J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No.32858 of 2007 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated: 10th December, 2007JUDGMENTThe persuasive and persistent submissions of Mr.P.V.JyothiPrasad, counsel for the petitioner notwithstanding, I do not find anyinfirmity about Ext.P4 order of the Corporation warranting exercise ofjudicial review by this court. It was pursuant to Ext.P3 judgment thatthe Corporation issued Ext.P4. Ext.P3 was a common judgment in twoWrit Petitions, viz, W.P.C.Nos.1264 & 15152 of 2007. The presentwrit petitioner (E.Salim) was the petitioner in W.P.C.No.1264 of 2007.The prayer in that Writ Petition was that the application for transfer oflicence issued in the name of Sudheer Babu, the petitioner inW.P.C.No.15152 of 2007 be decided with notice to the petitionerherein. On going through Ext.P3 judgment, I find that apart fromobserving that an interim order has been passed in favour of thepresent petitioner, this court has not granted any specific relief infavour of the petitioner. However, the Corporation has understoodExt.P3 as directing the Corporation to take a decision on thepetitioner's grievances also. According to Mr.Jyothi Prasad, in theoperative portion of Ext.P4, decision has been specifically taken onlyin respect of Room Nos.G21 and G22 and not in respect of G34 whichis the subject matter of the room in this Writ Petition. W.P.C.No.32858/07 - 2 -2. My attention was drawn by Mr.P.V.Kunhikrishnan, StandingCounsel for the Kozhikode Corporation to the last sentence inparagraph 4 of Ext.P4 wherein it is stated that separate decision hasbeen taken on 22.2.1994 as decision No.6 by the Committee forTaxation and Finance of the Corporation rejecting the petitioner'sapplication for transfer of licence. Mr.Jyothi Prasad would submit thatthe above rejection order is yet to be communicated to the petitioner.Mr.Jyothi Prasad requested that the Corporation be directed to placethat rejection order before this court so as to enable the petitioner toimpugn the same. I do not think that this court will be justified inpassing such an order. However, in view of the assertion of Mr.JyothiPrasad that the above rejection order is not communicated to thepetitioner so far, I dispose of the Writ Petition declining the reliefssought for, but directing the Corporation to communicate to thepetitioner within one month from today the order of the Committeefor Taxation and Finance dated 22.2.1994 (decision No.6) rejectingthe petitioner's application for transfer of licence in respect of RoomNo.G34. It is open to the petitioner to avail remedies, if any, availableto him on that.srdPIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE W.P.C.No.32858/07 - 3 -