Petitioner is a resident of ward No. XX of Kayamkulam Municipality. He has filed this writ petition for direction to the 1st respondent-Municipality to take immediate steps to close down the toddy shop run by the 4th respondent in the unauthorised building constructed by the 3rd respondent.

2. The case of the petitioner is that the 3rd respondent obtained Ext. P1 building permit from the 1st respondent-Municipality for construction of a residential building in ward No. XX of the municipality which is a residential area. However, the 3rd respondent instead of constructing a house constructed a building suitable for running a toddy shop and leased out the same to the 4th respondent who is running a toddy shop there from June 2004 onwards. Since the building is an unauthorised constriction, 1st respondent-municipality has not issued completion certificate or occupancy certificate, and so much so, the toddy shop should not be permitted to be run in the building is the case of the petitioner. The petitioner has a further case that the toddy shop run by the 4th respondent is an unauthorised one, in as much as the Municipality has not granted permission or licence to the 4th respondent under section 447 of the Kerala Municipalities Act, herein-after called for short the Act.

3. I have gone through the separate counter affidavits are filed by 1st respondent Municipality, the Assistant Commissioner of Excise under orders of this count and by respondents 3 and 4 and have also heard counsel appearing for the petitioner. 1st respondent, respondents 3 and 4 and the Government Pleader.

4. Counsel for respondents 3 and 4 raised preliminary objections about petitioner's locus standi to maintain the writ petition. According to him, petitioner is not residing near the alleged toddy shop and is living nearly 2 Kms. Away from the location of the toddy shop. Petitioner's cousin has filed another writ petition earlier and being unsuccessful to stop the toddy shop, petitioner has come in his place to maintain another writ petition in this court, is the case of respondents 3 and 4. On the other hand, petitioner contended that petitioner is a resident in the same ward and that large number of person complained to the Municipality, including the petitioner, against the unauthorized toddy shop run in the residential area and petitioner has not filed writ petition for the benefit of any relative residing nearer to the toddy shop. Even though petitioner is not residing very close to the toddy shop. I feel, petitioner has a right to maintain the writ petition if he is the victim of nuisance created by the toddy shop. Apart from petitioner's grievance whether proved or not. On going through the counter affidavit of the 1st respondent Municipality and after hearing counsel for Municipality. I fell interest of justice demands interference in the matter by this court for more than one reason. In the first place, according to the Municipality it is not able to take any decision in the matter on account of pendency of civil suit in the Munsiff Court, Kayamkulam as O.S.No.291/2004 filed by the 4th respondent, which on the face of it is not maintainable under section 563 of the Act. Secondly, it is brought to the notice of the building for running toddy shop is done by the 3rd respondent in an indirect and clandestine manner by obtaining permission for construction of a residential building and in gross violation of the plan approved by the Municipality he constructed the building suitable for toddy shop and let it out for 4th respondent for running the toddy shop without obtaining completion certificate or occupancy certificate from the Municipality, in terms of Rule 22 of the Kerala Municipality Building Rules, 1999, hereinafter called for short 'the Building Rules'. Above all, I feel, an authoritative clarification by this court about the Licensing authority of the Municipality for Abkari shops is called for after the amendment to the Municipality Act