Asha Anilkumar vs Cherthala Municipality
2021 Latest Caselaw 5430 Ker

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                               PRESENT

               THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN

      MONDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021/26TH MAGHA,1942

                      W.P.(C)No.3899 OF 2021(J)


 PETITIONER:

          ASHA ANILKUMAR, AGED 44 YEARS,
          W/O. ANILKUMAR, KALATHIL HOUSE,
          CMC -33, CHERTHALA P.O, ALAPPUZHA.

          BY ADVS.
          SRI.ANIL GEORGE
          SRI.JOBY JACOB PULICKEKUDY

 RESPONDENTS:

  1       CHERTHALA MUNICIPALITY,
          REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
          MUNICIPALITY OFFICE, CHERTHALA,
          ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT - 688 582.

  2       THE SECRETARY,
          CHERTHALA MUNICIPALITY,
          MUNICIPALITY OFFICE, CHERTHALA,
          ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT - 688 582.

  3       THE HEALTH SUPERVISOR,
          CHERTHALA MUNICIPALITY,
          CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT - 688 582.

  4       BENNY.S, AGED 45 YEARS,
          S/O. P.V.SIVARAMAN, CHIRAYIL HOUSE,
          KIZHAKKUM MURIYIL, VARANAD P.O,
          CHERTHALA - 688 539,
          REPRESENTED BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER,
          P.V. SIVARAMAN.


     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
15.02.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 W.P.(C)No.3899 OF 2021(J)


                                 2




                              JUDGMENT

The petitioner claims to be the lessee of 3.66

Ares of property of which the 4 th respondent is the

owner. According to the petitioner, a hotel is being

conducted by the petitioner in the building in the

property. Ext.P2 is the consent deed dated 20.11.2020

executed by the father of the 4 th respondent in his

capacity as the power of attorney holder, permitting

continuance of the business in the property for a

further period of three years.

The petitioner submitted Ext.P3 application for

license before the first respondent Municipality, for

conduct of hotel. The petitioner alleges that the

application was not received by the Secretary though it

was submitted in person, which necessitated the

petitioner to send the same by registered post. The

application is dated 8.2.2021. In the meanwhile, steps W.P.(C)No.3899 OF 2021(J)

are taken by the Municipality to close down the

business. It is accordingly that the writ petition is

filed.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner

Sri.Joby Jacob Pulickekudy and Sri.Joby Cyriac,

learned standing counsel for the Municipality. In the

nature of the order that I propose to pass, notice to

the other respondents are dispensed with.

That the petitioner is not possessed of any

license for the conduct of business, is not disputed.

The application of the petitioner is before the

Secretary. The application is stated to be

accompanied by Ext.P2 consent deed dated 20.11.2020

executed by the owner of the property. The

application is to be considered and orders passed.

I dispose of this writ petition directing the 2 nd

respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on

the application for issuance of licence, in the light

of Ext.P2 consent deed in accordance with law and W.P.(C)No.3899 OF 2021(J)

after hearing the parties. Let the same be done

within a period of ten days from the date of receipt

of a copy of this judgment.

Sd/-

SATHISH NINAN

JUDGE

ss W.P.(C)No.3899 OF 2021(J)

APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF POWER OF ATTORNEY DATED 22.01.2020.

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF CONSENT LETTER DATED 20.11.2020.

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF LICENSE APPLICATION DATED 08.02.2021.

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF POSTAL RECEIPT DATED 09.02.2021.

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF NOTICE DATED 05.02.2021 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P6 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF REPLY DATED 09.02.2021 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER.