P.R Ramachandra Menon J.
The petitioners have approached this Court with the following prayers.
(i) Pass an order modifying the impugned order of the learned single Judge directing respondents 1 & 2 to stop all constructions in relation to a factory, workshop or workplace and installation of equipments therein by respondents 3,4,7 and their men or agents without permission under Section 448 of Kerala Municipality Act 1994 and compliance of Exhibit R4(k) order of Hon'ble Ombudsman for Local Self Government Institutions and
(ii) award costs of the proceedings to the appellant.
2. When the matter came up for consideration before this Court on 11.04.2014, the following interim order was passed; which was subsequently extended till this day, as per the order dated 25.04.2014.
Call on 25.04.2014.
Till 25.04.2014, we direct respondents 1 & 2 to see that any construction of factory/workshop or workplace and installation of equipments for which permission is required under Section 448 of Kerala Municipality Act will not be done by the 7th respondent without obtaining such permission.
3. Today, when the matter is taken up for consideration the learned counsel appearing for the 7th respondent, learned counsel appearing for the fourth respondent and the learned standing counsel for the Municipality submit that the idea and understanding of the petitioners, as projected in the writ appeal is quite wrong and misconceived in all respects. It is stated that pursuant to the steps taken, a decision has already been taken by the Municipality to grant licence to the 7th respondent and that licence has been issued accordingly under the relevant provisions of law, particularly under Section 448 of Kerala Municipality Act, 1994. It is also stated across the Bar, that a copy of the relevant proceedings has been produced along with an I.A. filed before this Court today.
4. After hearing both the sides, this Court finds that nothing further remains to be considered in this writ appeal. Accordingly, the matter is closed without prejudice to the rights and liberties of the petitioners to challenge the decision taken by the Municipality, or the licence issued in this regard, in accordance with the relevant provisions of law, if aggrieved and if so advised.
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE K. ABRAHAM MATHEW JUDGE DMR/-