Mohandas vs Marakkara Grama Panchayath
2021 Latest Caselaw 7919 Ker

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                           PRESENT

         THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR

MONDAY, THE 08TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 17TH PHALGUNA, 1942

                   WP(C).No.5899 OF 2021(J)


PETITIONER:

              MOHANDAS, AGED 41 YEARS
              S/O. KARAPPAN, POOTHERI HOUSE, KADAMPUZHA,
              TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-676 553

              BY ADV. SRI.J.VIVEK GEORGE

RESPONDENTS:

     1        MARAKKARA GRAMA PANCHAYATH
              REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, P.O.MARAKKARA,
              MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-676 553

     2        SECRETARY,
              MARAKKARA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, P.O.MARAKKARA,
              MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-676 553


OTHER PRESENT:

              JAMSHEED HAFIZ

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP             FOR
ADMISSION ON 08.03.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME             DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 W.P.(C) No.5899 of 2021

                                    ..2..



                      W.P.(C) No.5899 of 2021
                   --------------------------------------

                              JUDGMENT

Petitioner is running a business in a rented premises

within the limits of the first respondent Panchayat for the last

five years after obtaining licence from the Panchayat. The

latest licence obtained by the petitioner expired on

31.03.2020. The application preferred by the petitioner for

renewal of the licence was, however, turned down by the

Secretary of the Panchayat on the ground that the petitioner

has not enclosed the consent letter of the landlord along with

the application for renewal. Ext.P1 is the communication

issued in this regard by the second respondent. Ext.P1

communication is under challenge in the writ petition. The

case set out by the petitioner in the writ petition is that in so

far as the original licence was issued on the strength of the

consent letter issued by the landlord of the premises, it was

unnecessary for the petitioner to produce the consent letter of

the landlord along with the application for renewal. W.P.(C) No.5899 of 2021

..3..

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as

also the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

3. In the light of the decision of the Apex Court in

Sudhakaran v. Corporation of Trivandrum and Another

(2016) 14 SCC 263, according to me, the petitioner is right in

contending that the consent letter of the landlord of the

premises cannot be insisted by the respondents for the

purpose of considering the application for renewal of the trade

licence.

4. In the circumstances, Ext.P1 is quashed and the

second respondent is directed to consider the application

referred to in Ext.P1 afresh without insisting production of the

consent letter of the landlord. This shall be done within two

weeks.

The writ petition is disposed of as above.

Sd/-

P.B.SURESH KUMAR JUDGE ds 08.03.2021 W.P.(C) No.5899 of 2021

..4..

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 17.,02.2021 ALONG WITH REQUEST LETTER OF THE BUILDING OWNER