Petitioner challenges Ext.P6, an order passed by the Secretary on 19/11/2014 directing the petitioner to stop the business activity being carried on in the premises in question within twenty four hours failing which the petitioner was threatened that action will be taken as per the provisions of the Kerala Municipality Act.
2. The facts involved in the above case is with reference to a hotel being conducted by the petitioner in a premises. According to the petitioner, the premises has a door number and he is entitled to carry on any activity in the said building. However, on the basis of certain complaints received by the local authority, the matter was enquired into and an order had been passed by the Secretary on 03/09/2014 as evident from Ext.P1 directing the petitioner to stop any activity in the building as his licence had been cancelled. It is, challenging the said order, that the petitioner had preferred Ext.P2 appeal before the Corporation Council. The Council had taken a decision as Ext.P5 dated 28/10/2014. In fact, in the meantime, another person had given a complaint regarding the functioning of the hotel by petitioner in the said premises which was directed to be considered by the authorities as per judgment dated 18/07/2014 in W.P.C.No.15308/2014. The Council, by Ext.P5, observed that appropriate decision will be taken by the Municipal Secretary with reference to the matters in question. It is, pursuant to the said directions, that Ext.P6 decision has been taken by the Secretary.
3. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent/Corporation submits that Ext.P6 order is appealable.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the building in question has a proper number and he is entitled to carry on hotel business in the premises. This fact is disputed by the learned counsel for the respondent. It is stated that the area in question was a car parking area as per the sanctioned plan and therefore it cannot be utilised for carrying on any business much less, hotel business.
5. It is therefore clear that the issue projected by the petitioner amounts to disputed questions of fact which cannot be considered in this writ petition. Petitioner has a proper and alternate remedy of filing an appeal against Ext.P6 order which he is entitled to avail. Hence, I am of the view that this Court cannot sit in judicial review over a decision taken by the Municipal Secretary and that too when it is an appealable order.
In the result, reserving the right of the petitioner to approach the appellate authority, this writ petition is dismissed.
(sd/-) (A.M.SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE) jsr