Ramachandra Menon, J.
Interference declined by the learned Single Judge in W.P(C). No. 3341 of 2012 with regard to the prayers set up by the appellant herein to interfere with the building permit issued by the local authority and also the functioning of the bar hotel in the premises concerned made the appellant to approach this court by filing this Appeal.
2. The sequence of events narrated in the proceedings revealed that the appellant/writ petitioner had challenged Exhibit P1 permit issued by the Secretary of the Manjapra Grama Panchayt in favour of respondents 5 and 6; also seeking for a direction to prohibit the respondents 1 to 4 from granting the bar hotel classification and bar licence to the respondents 5 and 6.
3. In the course of hearing, it was brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge that the petitioner had already approached the Munsiff's Court, Aluva by filing O.S.No.32/2009 challenging the issuance of bar licence to the 7th respondent. It was also observed that the petitioner had approached this Court earlier by filing W.P(C).No.17299/2009 with regard to the course of events leading to the direction/judgment obtained by the 7th respondent to have the application for bar licence considered by the Excise authorities. Exhibit P3 judgment was passed by the learned Single Judge in the said case directing the authorities concerned to consider the application and pass appropriate orders. The case of the appellant/petitioner was that the respondents 5 and 6, joining hands with the 7th respondent, had obtained building permit for construction of another hotel in the nearby vicinity. It was accordingly, that Exhibit P6 permit was obtained, which made the appellant/petitioner to have it challenged before this Court by filing W.P(C).No.3341 of 2012.
4. After hearing, the learned Judge observed that the issue had already been considered by this Court, particularly with reference to the proceedings pending before the civil court by way of O.S.No.32/2009 and on the basis of the verdict to be passed therein, the matter caused to be considered by the Excise authorities as well. It was in the said circumstances that the relief sought for by the petitioner was declined and the Writ Petition was disposed of, directing respondents 2 and 4 to consider the objections of the petitioner contained in Exhibits P7 to P10 before granting any classification or bar licence to respondents 5 and 6, if not already granted.
5. After hearing the party-in-person/appellant and also the learned Government Pleader, this Court finds that no interference is warranted as the merit has not been decided by the learned Single Judge and it is for the appellant/writ petitioner to pursue the matter before the appropriate forum as already made clear by the learned Single Judge. Interference is declined and the Writ Appeal is dismissed accordingly.
MANJULA CHELLUR, CHIEF JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE
vgs17.6.14