The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging Ext.P9 proceedings issued by the 2nd respondent by which an application for the issue of a licence under Section 5 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj (Issue of Licence to Dangerous and Offensive Trades and Factories) Rules, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'the D & O Rules' for short) has been rejected. The reason stated for rejection is that, the petitioner who claims to be one of the co-owners in respect of the building in question, has not produced the consent of one of the co-owners. The contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that, since all the other co-owners have consented, the absence of consent by one co-owner is not of any consequence at all. Secondly, it is contended that, Ext.P9 has been passed by the 2nd respondent who is not competent to issue the said notice.
2. Heard. I notice that the petitioner has a statutory remedy by way of appeal before the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions, Thiruvananthapuram against Ext.P9. Since the petitioner has not exhausted the said remedy, I am not inclined to admit this writ petition.
W.P.(C) No.28527 of 2014 2 This writ petition is therefore dismissed, without prejudice to the rights of the petitioner to pursue the statutory remedy available to him against Ext.P9.
Sd/-
K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE.
AV