C. Kuriakose, J.

1. It appears to me that there is an element of genuineness in the grievance, which is voiced by the petitioner who is approaching this court in respect of the same subject matter, i.e., shop No.13/1, for the third time. In that shop room the petitioner's uncle and after him the petitioner used to conduct a fruit stall. The respondents are the Paravur Municipality and its Council. The conduct of the fruit stall in question was entrusted to the petitioner by his uncle who is hospitalised at the Regional Cancer Centre, Trivandrum for treatment for terminal condition of cancer. While the petitioner was conducting the fruit stall, the 1st respondent-Municipality issued a demolition notice to him, his uncle as well as to the owner of the shop room alleging that renovations had been effected without permission from the Municipality. Challenging that demolition notice the petitioner approached the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions and the Tribunal passed Ext.P2 order dated 8.2.2007 staying the demolition notice. The petitioner submits that even as Ext.P2 order was in currency, the petitioner was served with Ext.P3 notice dated 31.1.2007 directing the petitioner to stop the fruit stall within 24 hours of receipt of the notice on the reason that no licence had been obtained by him for conducting business. The petitioner points out that the Paravur Municipality came into being only in 1988 and that previously the area was within the limits of the Paravur Panchayat to which the Building Rules never applied. The shop room is about 75 years old and the petitioner and his uncle became obliged to renovate the same since an adjacent shop room which was also under the occupation of the petitioner's uncle had to be demolished at the request of the 1st respondent for widening the road. The Municipality issued the demolition order presently stayed by Ext.P2 on extraneous considerations. Even Ext.P3 has been passed by the Municipality on extraneous considerations. Mandatory notification as contemplated by Section 447 of the Municipality Act making licence requirements obligatory for conduct of fruit stall has not been published. On receiving Ext.P3, the petitioner approached this court and this court passed Ext.P4 judgment directing the Municipality to take a decision on the application for licence, which he had filed in the meanwhile for selling fruits. The question whether it is necessary to take out a licence for conduct of fruit stall in the absence of a notification founded on rules framed by the Government under Section 447 of the Municipality Act was not considered by this court, though raised, it is pointed out. The petitioner submits that pursuant to Ext.P4, the 1st respondent passed Ext.P5 order rejecting the petitioner's application for licence. While Ext.P4 judgment directed the Municipality to dispose of the licence application within two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the judgment, the Municipality passed Ext.P5 even before certified copy of the judgment was ready for issue to either of the parties. The petitioner therefore filed W.P.C.No.10178/07 challenging Ext.P5 and on being satisfied that the certified copy of Ext.P4 had not been issued to any of the parties even at the time when W.P.C.No.10178/07 came up for admission, this court granted interim stay of Ext.P5. The petitioner alleges that thereafter with the object of patching up the obscurities and filling up the lacunae in Ext.P5, the 1st respondent passed fresh order Ext.P6 dated 7.4.2007. On coming to notice Ext.P6, W.P.C.No.10178/07 was closed by this court passing Ext.P7 judgment under which the petitioner was given liberty to challenge Ext.P6. However in Ext.P7 this court recorded an assurance given by the Standing Counsel for the Municipality that for a period of three weeks from 5.9.2007 no coercive action will be taken against the petitioner.

2. The petitioner submits further that that on receiving the certified copy of