Judgment :- 1. By consent of the learned counsel on either side, this writ petition is taken up for final disposal. 2. Heard Mr. K.Thilageswaran, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.R.Sivakumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 3. What is challenged in the writ petition is the notice issued under Section 355 of the Coimbatore City Municipal Corporation Act (hereinafter referred to as Act) directing the petitioner to vacate the parking area, which the petitioner is running without permission under Section 358 of the said Act. Seeking to quash the said Notice and for a consequential direction to pass orders on his application dated 16.06.2010, the petitioner is before this court. 4. According to the petitioner, he is having family property to an extent of 21,000 sq. ft. at No.190, D.B.Road, R.S.Puram, Coimbatore and he is running a four-wheeler and two-wheeler dealing office in the said place for the past five years, in which he purchases and sells used vehicles. Since, the said place often congests vehicle traffic, he proposed to start a private parking station in his own property stated above. He made every arrangements for the safety and security of the vehicles and on experimental basis, he has started the same in the month of June 2010 and there was good response from the public due to commercial activities in that area. 4a. It is the further case of the petitioner that he enquired the respondent office regarding the permission and tax if any to be paid by him for the said Vehicle parking. However, instead of furnishing the said details, the 2nd respondent herein issued a notice dated June 2010 to Mr.A.Venkatesh and asked to vacate the parking place within a period of three days. As the said notice was wrongly served on Mr.A.Venkatesh on 25.06.2010, the officials from the said respondent Corporation again came and served the said notice on the petitioner. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this court. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that parking facilities are made within the petitioner premises and the petitioner is prepared to obtain permission and he has made an application in that regard to the 1st respondent on 16.06.2010. Even before considering the said application, the 2nd respondent has issued notice to the petitioner. 6. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that parking facilities are made within the petitioner premises and the petitioner is prepared to obtain permission and he has made an application in that regard to the 1st respondent on 16.06.2010. Even before considering the said application, the 2nd respondent has issued notice to the petitioner. 6. However, this submission has been controverted by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent Corporation stating that without prior licence under Section 358 of the Act, the petitioner has started vehicular parking in the name of Kennedy Parking and therefore, the impugned notice has been issued and it cannot be faulted with. 7. I have heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the material documents as well as the provisions of law. 8. Admittedly, the petitioner has started the parking area in question even before applying to the respondent Corporation and he has approached them for obtaining permission by remitting prescribed fees. In the meanwhile, the impugned notice has been served on the petitioner. As per Section 358 of the Act, licence for private cart-stand has to be obtained. Relevant clauses of the said Section read as under: "(1)No person shall open a new private cart-stand or continue to keep open a private cart-stand unless he obtains from the Commissioner a licence to do so. (2)Applications for such licence shall be made by the owner of the place in respect of which the licence is sought not less than forty-five and not more than ninety days before the opening of such place as a cart-stand or the commencement of the year for which the licence is sought to be renewed, as the case may be. (3)The commissioner shall, as regards private cart-stands already lawfully established and may, at his discretion as regards new private cart-stands, grant the licence applied for subject to such regulations as to supervision and inspection and to such conditions as to conservancy as he may think proper, or he may refuse to grant any such licence for any new private cart-stand. The Commissioner may, at any time for breach of the conditions thereof, suspend or cancel any licence which has been granted under this section. The Commissioner may also modify the conditions of the licence to take effect from a specified date. " 9. The Commissioner may, at any time for breach of the conditions thereof, suspend or cancel any licence which has been granted under this section. The Commissioner may also modify the conditions of the licence to take effect from a specified date. " 9. A scrutiny of the case would reveal that the petitioner has established the said vehicle parking in his private property without prior approval. But, he has made an application to the 1st respondent on 16.06.2010 to permit him to run a private parking in that area. It is also pointed out that the petitioner is prepared to comply with all the requirements as contemplated under the provisions of the Act for establishing a vehicle-parking. Therefore, this court is of the view that if the petitioners application is disposed of, then his grievance would be redressed. 10. The impugned notice issued by the 2nd respondent to the petitioner under Section 355 of the Act contemplates that the Commissioner may construct or provide public landing places, halting places, cart-stands, cattle-sheds and cow houses and may charge and levy such fees for the same as the standing committee may fix. Explanation to the said Section specifies that a cart-stand shall, for the purposes of the Act, include a stand for carriages including motor vehicles within the meaning of the Motor Vehicles Act, and animals. Further, Section 358 (1) of the Act provides that no person shall open a new private cart-stand or continue to keep open a private cart-stand unless he obtains from the Commissioner a licence to do so. In the case on hand, the petitioner, even before applying to the Commissioner, has put up a cart-stand in the name of Kennedy Parking. Therefore, unless the petitioner obtains licence to run the vehicle parking, his claim for running the same cannot be granted. 11. In the light of the above, this court finds no reasons to interfere with the impugned notice issued by the 2nd respondent. Hence, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider the petitioners application dated 16.06.2010, provided, the petitioner satisfies all the requirements under the provisions of Section 358 of the Act, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass appropriate orders on the said application within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Till such time, the respondents are directed to maintain status quo. No costs. Consequently, connected M.P.Nos.1 to 3 of 2010 are closed.