Disposed

S.Shamsudheen v. Corporation of Thiruvananthapuram.

Kerala HC13 Jan 2009WP(C)/27/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner operated a tea shop without a renewed license and sought a writ directing the Corporation to issue a license. The Court directed the petitioner to file a proper application within two weeks and maintained status quo pending compliance.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to file proper application with fees within two weeks; status quo maintained pending response by respondent.

S.Shamsudheen Vs Corporation of Thiruvananthapuram. — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 13TH JANUARY 2009 / 23RD POUSHA 1930

¶5

WP(C).No. 27 of 2009(C)

PETITIONER(S):

S.SHAMSUDHEEN, T.C.NO.19/990,THAMALAM, MUDAVANMUGAL.P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.M.RAJASEKHARAN NAYAR

¶11

RESPONDENT(S): ---------------

¶12

CORPORATION OF THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, CORPORATION BUILDING THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶13

ADV. SRI. N. NANDAKUMARA MENON (SR) SRI. P.K. MANOJ KUMAR.

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

S. Siri Jagan, J.

¶16

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

¶17

W. P (C) No. 27 of 2009

¶18

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

¶19

Dated this, the 13^th January, 2009.

¶20

Petitioner is running a tea shop in a building, part of which was acquired in land acquisition proceedings. According to the petitioner, in the balance portion which is in the possession of the petitioner, the petitioner continues to conduct the business of the tea shop. He had a licence to conduct the same till 2007-2008. According to the petitioner, for the year 2008-2009, the Corporation received licence fee, but did not issue licence on the ground that the building has no number at present. The petitioner therefore seeks the following reliefs:

¶21

“a) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondent to accept the license fee due for conduct of the tea shop and issue a necessary license forthwith,

¶22

b) Grant such other reliefs which are just and equitable and also the nature of the case requires,

¶23

c) Stay the operation of Exhibit P3 and direct the respondent to issue provisional license till the disposal of this writ petition.”

¶24

Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the Corporation submits that the petitioner has filed an application only in a plain paper which has been rejected and a final notice has also been issued. However, counsel for the petitioner submits that he has not yet received either the rejection order or the final notice. The contention of the senior counsel is that the petitioner has not filed an application for renewal of licence in the proper form. I am not going into the controversy, since the only dispute is as to whether the petitioner has filed an application in the proper form. In the above circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of with the following directions:

¶25

W.P.C. No. 27/2009. -: 2 :-

¶26

The petitioner shall file an application in the proper form with appropriate licence fee within a period of two weeks from today, along with a certified copy of this judgment. The same shall be considered and appropriate orders passed by the respondent within three weeks from the date of receipt of the same. Till then, status quo as on today shall be maintained in respect of the tea shop.

¶27

Tds/

¶28

[True copy]

¶29

P.S to Judge.

S.Shamsudheen v. Corporation of Thiruvananthapuram.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Shamsudheen v. Corporation of Thiruvananthapuram.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Baby N.V. Vs S.K.Ratheeshkumar

Dr.R.Prakasam Vs Institute of Management

M.N.Somasekharan Nair Vs the Industrial Tribunal, Kozhikode

Jaimon James Vs Corporation of Cochin

Valiya Eri Padasekara Samithi Vs the Union of India and Others

Maratt Rubber Ltd. Vs State of Kerala