Lena Gold And Diamonds Jewellers vs The Kottayam Municipality
2022 Latest Caselaw 1381 Ker

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                   PRESENT
                THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
         TUESDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022 / 12TH MAGHA, 1943
                            WP(C) NO. 3209 OF 2022
PETITIONER:

              LENA GOLD AND DIAMONDS JEWELLERS
              THANIKKAL BUILDING, GANDHI SQUARE, MUTTAMBALAM, KOTTAYAM,
              KERALA PIN-686002 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR,
              LENJU K JAMES, SON OF JAMES KOLATH, AGED 40 YEARS, KOLATH
              HOUSE, NEELAMPEROOR P.O., PIN-686534, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT,
              PIN - 686534

              BY ADVS.
              P.M.ZIRAJ
              IRFAN ZIRAJ



RESPONDENTS:

     1        THE KOTTAYAM MUNICIPALITY
              MUNICIPAL BUILDING, KOTTAYAM, PIN- 686001 REPRESENTED BY
              ITS SECRETARY, PIN - 686001

     2        THE SECRETARY
              KOTTAYAM MUNICIPALITY, MUNICIPAL BUILDING, KOTTAYAM,
              PIN - 686001


     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
01.02.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 3209 OF 2022                        2




                                        JUDGMENT

This writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:-

"I) To Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order directing the second respondent not to close down the business concern of petitioner in Door No.9/856 and 9/856-A (New No.XIII/1954 and XIII/1953) of Kottayam Municipality which is situated in Sy No.12, Thanikkal Building, Gandhi Square, Muttambalam, Kottayam, Kerala Pin-686 002 which is a registered business concern under Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Facilitation Act 2019 on the ground that petitioner not obtained license and alleged structural alteration of the building.

2. Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, direction or order by calling for the records leading to the issuance of exhibit P5 communication and set aside the same as illegal."

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the

learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents.

3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner

that the petitioner has a Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises (for

short, MSME) registration with regard to the business in question and

that the petitioner does not require licence from the Municipality for

conducting the activity for which registration has been obtained. It is

contended that the petitioner's application for trade licence had been

rejected by Ext.P5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits

that the respondents are threatening to close down the establishment

of the petitioner on the ground of unauthorised construction in the

building in which he is conducting the business, without notice.

4. The learned standing counsel appearing for the

Municipality submits that Ext.P5 is dated 15.9.2021 and the

petitioner had been specifically informed in Ext.P5 that there was

unauthorised construction in the building in question. The petitioner

has been required to submit objection, if any, within seven days. It is

submitted that absolutely no objections of whatever nature was

submitted by the petitioner and that the contentions raised by the

petitioner with regard to the trade licence have also not been taken

up before the Municipality.

Having considered the contentions advanced, I am of the opinion

that it is for the petitioner to submit its objections, if any, to Ext.P5.

In case the petitioner submits such objections pointing out its

contentions with regard to the action proposed in Ext.P5, the same

will be considered in accordance with law. The petitioner shall also

produce the acknowledgement receipt from the Nodal Agency under

the MSME Act which also shall be duly considered by the 2 nd

respondent in accordance law. Appropriate action shall be taken after

hearing the petitioner and any complainant in the matter within a

period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the

judgment. Till such time, the coercive action shall not be taken

against the petitioner.

This writ petition is ordered accordingly.

Sd/-

ANU SIVARAMAN JUDGE ska

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 3209/2022

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

Exhibit- P1 TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE DATED 18.12.2020 OF THE PETITIONER UNDER MSME ACT

Exhibit- P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT CERTIFICATE DATED 18.11.2021 ISSUED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF KERALA MICRO SMALL MEDIUM ENTERPRISES FACILITATION RULE

Exhibit- P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE OF THE PETITIONER ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA UNDER DEPARTMENT OF GOODS AND SERVICE TAX (GST) DATED 23.12.2021

Exhibit- P4 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 14.7.2021 BEFORE THE SECOND RESPONDENT

Exhibit- P5 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 15.9.2021 ISSUED BY THE HEALTH SUPERVISOR, KOTTAYAM MUNICIPALITY

Exhibit- P6 TRUE COPY OF THE LATEST TAX RECEIPT IN CONNECTION WITH THE SHOP ROOM OF PETITIONER DATED 14.7.2021

Exhibit- P7 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT DATED 14.12.2020 IN W.P.C NO. 20127 OF