Dismissed

Muneer N K v. the Secretary

Kerala HC4 Jun 2014WP(C)/3788/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the non-renewal of an LCD kiosk license. The court held the petitioner had no legal right to continue since the two-year license (extended by one year) had expired. A pending representation to the Chairman did not affect the committee's decision for renewal under the Master Plan. The petitioner was granted 15 days to surrender the kiosk.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed; the petitioner was granted 15 days' time to surrender the kiosk to the respondent authority.

Muneer N K Vs the Secretary — Landlord and Tenant | Kerala HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF JUNE 2014/14TH JYAISHTA, 1936

¶5

WP(C).No. 3788 of 2014 (W)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

NK MUNEER, PROPRIETOR OF ZYBOCLICK VISUAL MEDIA, AGED 29 YEARS, S/O HAMID HAJI, NALUKANDATHIL HOUSE, PALLIPPADI, THANALUR P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.G.HARIHARAN SRI.PRAVEEN.H.

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. THE SECRETARY, DISTRICT TOURISM PROMOTION COUNCIL, UP HILL, MALAPPURAM-676 505.

¶11

2. THE DISTRICT TOURISM PROMOTION COUNCIL, UP HILL, MALAPPURAM-676 505, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶12

3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CIVIL STATION, MALAPPURAM-676 505.

¶13

4. STATE OF KERALA,

¶14

DEPARTMENT OF TOURISM, ROOM NO.157, NEAR NORTH COMMITTEE ROOM NORTH BLOCK,

¶15

SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶16

BY SR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.SOJAN JAMES

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04-06-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

sts

¶19

WP(C).No. 3788 of 2014 (W)

¶20

APPENDIX

¶21

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶22

EXHIBIT P1: TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 7.2.2011 ENTERED INTO BETWEEN THE 2ND RESPONDENT AND M/S NAS SIGN ADVERTISING GROUP.

¶23

EXHIBIT P2: TRUE COPY OF THE POWER OF ATTORNEY ISSUED BY THE MANAGER OF M/S NAS SIGN ADVERTISING GROUP TO THE PETITIONER.

¶24

EXHIBIT P3: TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 12.6.2013 ENTERED INTO BETWEEN THE 2ND RESPONDENT AND THE PETITIONER.

¶25

EXHIBIT P4: TRUE COPY OF PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE KIOSK AND PEOPLE VIEWING THE DISPLAY.

¶26

EXHIBNIT P5: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 23.1.2014 HAVING NUMBER D/36/11/DTPC ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P6: TRUE COPY OF THE POSTAL COVER IN WHICH EXHIBIT P5 ORDER. EXHIBIT P7: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 28.1.2014 SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

¶27

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: NIL

/TRUE COPY/

P.S.TO.JUDGE

sts

A.M. Shaffique, J.

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

¶33

W.P(C) No. 3788 of 2014

¶34

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 4^th day of June, 2014.

¶35

Petitioner challenges Ext. P5 by which the licence granted in his favour for conducing LCD kiosk has not been renewed. It is inter alia stated that the area in question comes under Kottakkunnu Master Plan and therefore it was decided by the DTPC Executive Committee not to renew license in favour of the petitioner.

¶36

Counter affidavit is filed by respondents 1 and 2 inter alia stating that based on expression of interest submitted by an agency, permission was grated to Nas Sign Advertising Group to set up kiosk for a period of two years and by virtue of an agreement dated 7.2.2011, the said kiosk was set up. The period of contract was over and taking into consideration his application, the period was extended by one year, which expired on 6.2.2014. In the meantime, taking into consideration the fact that Kottakkunnu is a fast developing tourist place, it was decided not to renew license. It is also indicated that there was gross delay on the part of the petitioner in paying the license fee.

¶37

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Special Government Pleader .

¶38

Having regard to the factual situation involved in

¶39

W.P(C) No. 3788 of 2014 -: 2 :-

¶40

the matter, it is clear that the petitioner was only granted a license to conduct the kiosk for a period of two years, which was extended for another one year. When the authority decided not to renew license, the petitioner has no legal right to claim that he should continue with the said kiosk. Hence, the petitioner has no legal right for the same.

¶41

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had made a representation to the Chairman of the Committee, which is pending consideration.

¶42

The facts in the case would reveal that decision was taken by the Committee and to what extent the Chairman can interfere in the matter is not known.

¶43

Under these circumstances, I do not think that the petitioner is entitled for any reliefs in this writ petition and accordingly the writ petition is dismissed. The petitioner is granted 15 days' time to surrender the kiosk to the respondent authority.

¶44

Sd/- A.M. Shaffique, Judge.

¶45

Tds/

Muneer N K v. the Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Muneer N K v. the Secretary

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

Parameswaran Vs Jaco

The Tattamangalam Service Co-Operative Bank Vs State of Kerala

Thankamma Gopalan Vs State of Kerala

Anilkumar C.R Vs University of Calicut

Bava Vs State of Kerala

N.v.Suhara Vs State of Kerala