Abdul Rashid vs The State Of Kerala
2021 Latest Caselaw 2050 Ker

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                PRESENT

          THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR

    TUESDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 29TH POUSHA, 1942

                        WP(C).No.1371 OF 2021(V)


PETITIONER/S:

                ABDUL RASHID
                AGED 50 YEARS
                S/O. UMMER KALLATHIL, MANIKUALTH HOUSE, VELIYAMKODE
                P.O. MALAPPURAM DISTRICT 679 587.

                BY ADV. SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR)

RESPONDENT/S:

      1         THE STATE OF KERALA
                REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT,
                REVENUE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
                THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT 695 001.

      2         THE CHALAKUDY MUNICIPALITY ,
                REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, CHALAKUDY P.O. THRISSUR
                DISTRICT 680 307.


OTHER PRESENT:

                SC: M.P ASHOK KUMAR, GP PAUL ABRAHAM VAKKANAL

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
19.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C).No.1371 OF 2021(V)

                                       2



                                  JUDGMENT

The petitioner has approached this Court aggrieved by Ext.P2

notice that alleges that he is carrying on a trade without obtaining

the necessary license for conducting the same. The petitioner has

preferred Ext.P3 reply to the said notice inter alia disputing the

necessity of a license for carrying out the activities in the premises.

The limited prayer at this stage is for a direction to the 2 nd

respondent to consider and pass orders on the reply submitted by the

petitioner to Ext.P2 notice, expeditiously, after hearing the petitioner.

2.I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner

and also the learned Government Pleader appearing for the

respondents.

On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case

as also the submissions made across the Bar, I dispose the writ

petition by directing the 2nd respondent to consider Ext.P3 reply

preferred by the petitioner to Ext.P2 notice issued to him, and pass

orders on the same within one month, after hearing the petitioner. It

is made clear that till such time as orders are passed by the 2 nd

respondent as directed, and the order communicated to the

petitioner, coercive steps based on Ext.P2 notice shall not be taken

against the petitioner. The petitioner shall produce a copy of the writ WP(C).No.1371 OF 2021(V)

petition together with a copy of this judgment, before the 2 nd

respondent, for further action.

Sd/-

A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE

SJ WP(C).No.1371 OF 2021(V)

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION WITH THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, DATED 30.6.2015.

EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 30.9.2020.

EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY OF THE PETITIONER DATED 18.12.2020.

EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER DATED 18.12.2020.

EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE RULES OF 2011 DATED 25.7.2011.