Franco Jose vs The Thrissur Municipal ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 2506 Ker

              IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                  PRESENT
             THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
     FRIDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF MARCH 2022 / 13TH PHALGUNA, 1943
                         WP(C) NO.29090 OF 2021
PETITIONER :-

             FRANCO JOSE, AGED 56 YEARS
             S/O.MUNDAN KURIAN JOSE, RESIDING AT 34/1263B,
             SATHYAVAN LANE, MOTHER THERESA ROAD, EDAPALLY,
             ERNAKULAM - 682 024.

           BY ADVS.
           K.G.BALASUBRAMANIAN
           AMBILY (PREMKUMAR)


RESPONDENT :-

             THRISSUR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION
             REP.BY ITS SECRETARY, M O ROAD,
             THRISSUR P.O. - 680 001.

             BY ADV SRI. SANTHOSH P.PODUVAL, SC, THRISSUR
             CORPORATION


      THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON   04.03.2022,   THE    COURT    ON   THE   SAME   DAY   DELIVERED   THE
FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO.29090 OF 2021

                                   -: 2 :-


                               JUDGMENT

Dated this the 4th day of March, 2022

This writ petition is filed seeking the following relief :-

"(A) Call for the records relating to Ext.P3 and quash the same with a Writ of Certiorari or such other Writ, Order or Direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and direct the respondent to issue licence to the petitioner to do business in mobile phones and accessories at his premises door No.25/411, Round South, Thrissur."

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the

learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent.

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

that the petitioner is a tenant in possession of a building in which

he has been conducting a business for several years. It is

submitted that the issue with regard to the tenancy of the

petitioner is covered by competent judgment of the civil court and

that the refusal on the part of the respondent to consider the

request made by the petitioner for renewal of licence and for

changing the nature of licence by including electronic items on the

ground that the petitioner has to produce a certified copy of the

registered rent deed is completely untenable in the facts and

circumstances of the case.

4. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the

respondent submits that the petitioner had not produced the rent WP(C) NO.29090 OF 2021

deed along with the application and he had been only required to

produce the same as per Ext.P3.

5. Having considered the contentions advanced and in view

of the contention raised by the petitioner that the issue of tenancy

stands settled in favour of the petitioner, I am of the opinion that

the rejection of the application on the ground that the petitioner

has to produce a certified copy of the rent deed is untenable.

In the above view of the matter, Ext.P3 is set aside.

There will be a direction to the respondent to take up the

application submitted by the petitioner for renewal and for change

of the nature of licence as evidenced by Ext.P2 and to consider and

pass orders on the same, after hearing the petitioner as well as the

owner of the property and after considering their contentions.

Orders shall be passed within a period of three weeks from the

date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

This writ petition is ordered accordingly.

Sd/-

ANU SIVARAMAN JUDGE

Jvt/8.3.2022 WP(C) NO.29090 OF 2021

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 29090/2021

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF RECEIPT NO.20020116162 DATED 20.2.2021 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT FOR THE PERIOD 2021/2022

Exhibit P2 LETTER DATED 6.11.2021 TO THE RESPONDENT FROM THE PETITIONER

Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO.PH1/48689/21 DATED 3.12.2021 FROM THE RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER