Mohammed Shereef vs Perumbavoor Municipality
2021 Latest Caselaw 14868 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                   PRESENT
               THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY
 THURSDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF JULY 2021 / 24TH ASHADHA, 1943
                        WP(C) NO. 13326 OF 2013
PETITIONER:

               MOHAMMED SHEREEF
               S/O.SAIDU MOHAMMED,
               KUNNATHUVALAPPIL VEEDU,
               KATTAKAMBAL VILLAGE,KATTAMBAKKAL P.O,PERUMBAVOOR

               BY ADV SRI.D.ANIL KUMAR



RESPONDENT:

    1          PERUMBAVOOR MUNICIPALITY
               REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,PERUMBAVOOR

 ADDL R2 GANDHI BAZAR MERCHANTS SOCIETY
         REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, REG.NO.ER/425/99,
         P.P.ROAD, PERUMBAVOOR -683 542.

               ADDL R2 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED
               22.10.2013 IN I.A.NO.13783/2013

               BY ADVS.
               R1 SRI.V.M.KURIAN
               R2 SRI.T.R.HARIKUMAR




        THIS     WRIT   PETITION    (CIVIL)     HAVING    COME    UP    FOR
ADMISSION       ON   15.07.2021,     THE     COURT   ON   THE    SAME   DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 13326 OF 2013
                                       -2-




                                  JUDGMENT

This writ petition is filed by the petitioner

seeking the following reliefs:-

"i) Issue a writ declaring that the petitioner's application for licence (Exhibit P2)is deemed to have been allowed as contemplated under Sub-Section 15 of Section 492 of the Kerala Municipality Act.

ii) Issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondent to issue the licence to the petitioner in terms of his application (Exhibit P2)"

2. The basic contention advanced by the

petitioner is that, since the Secretary of the

Perumbavoor Municipality has considered the

application for renewal of the trade licence by

the petitioner within the time period prescribed

under law, petitioner has secured a deemed

licence. Apparently the subject issue relates to

the year 2013-14 and at this distance of time, it

cannot be visualised and presumed that anything WP(C) NO. 13326 OF 2013

survives to be considered or adjudicated in this

writ petition, since as per the Rule existing that

the trade licence is to be renewed/issued every

year.

In that view of the matter, I do not think

that anything survives to be considered in this

writ petition as of now. Therefore, the writ

petition is dismissed as infructuous.

Sd/-

SHAJI P.CHALY JUDGE hmh