Rajan vs Thrissur Corporation
2021 Latest Caselaw 11690 Ker

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                    PRESENT

                  THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

           FRIDAY, THE 09TH DAY OF APRIL 2021 / 19TH CHAITHRA, 1943

                          WP(C).No.34424 OF 2014(C)


PETITIONER/S:

                RAJAN
                AGED 50 YEARS
                S/O.JOHN DANIAL,10/773,FRIENDS FANCY STORES,MARIYA
                TOWER,ERINJERY ANGADY,THRISSUR TALUK,
                THRISSUR DISTRICT 680 001

                BY ADV. SRI.RAJIT

RESPONDENT/S:

       1        THRISSUR CORPORATION
                CORPORATION OFFICE,THRISSUR DISTRICT
                REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY,PIN 680 001

       2        THE HEALTH OFFICER, THRISSUR CORPORATION OFFICE,
                THRISSUR DISTRICT 680 001.


       3        PRAVEENLAL VINCENT
                S/O.VINCENT,VADAKKUMCHERY POTTAKKAL HOUSE,T.B
                ROAD,CHEMBUKKAVU VILLAGE,THRISSUR DISTRICT - 680 001.


                R3 BY ADV. SMT.P.K.PRIYA
                R1 BY ADV. SRI.C.A.MAJEED, SC, THRISSUR CORPORATION
                R1 & R2 BY SRI. SANTHOSH P.PODUVAL, SC, THRISSUR
                CORPORATION



     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09.04.2021,
     THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 W.P.(C) No. 34424/2014               :2:



              Dated this the 9th day of April, 2021.

                                JUDGMENT

This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking the

following reliefs:

1) Call for the records leading upto Ext. P6 and quash Exts. P3, P4 and P6 by an issuance of a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction.

2) Issue a writ of mandamus or any appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the respondents 1 and 2 to renew the licence to the petitioner for conducting business in Ladies Fancy items and Toys without insisting for a consent letter from the 3 rd respondent.

3) Issue a writ of mandamus or any appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the respondents 1 and 2 to accept the entire arrears of license fee in respect of the business conducted by the petitioner, without insisting on production of the consent from the 3rd respondent.

4) Declare that respondents 1 and 2 have no right to refuse the gant of license/revoke the licence already granted to the petitioner on the sole ground that the consent of the 3 rd respondent has not been obtained by the petitioner.

2. However, today when the matter is taken up for

consideration, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the

writ petition is not pressed.

Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as not pressed.

However, the materials on record discloses that the Mediator has

filed a report dated 10 th February, 2016, from where I find that there

was some settlement entered into by and between the petitioner and

the third respondent.

sd/-

SHAJI P. CHALY, JUDGE.

Rv