Disposed

K.G.Yahiya Ravuthar v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC23 Jun 2016WP(C)/11289/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Addressed the denial of business license renewal while a demolition appeal was pending. Directed the Tribunal to decide the appeal within two months, maintained status quo, and allowed the petitioner to continue business subject to the appeal's outcome.

What did the court decide?

License remains valid; petitioner allowed to continue business; Tribunal directed to decide appeal within two months; status quo maintained.

K.G.Yahiya Ravuthar Vs State of Kerala — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF JUNE 2016/2ND ASHADHA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 11289 of 2016 (I)

¶6

PETITIONER :

¶7

K.G.YAHIYA RAVUTHAR, PROPRIETOR, BABUS BAKERY, RESIDING AT SHEEBA MANZIL, SOUTH GATE, VAIKOM (LICENSE HOLDER AND OCCUPANT OF VAIKOMMUNICIPALITY BUILDING NO.VII/562).

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.P.HARIDAS

¶9

SMT.S.SIKKY SMT.DIVYA K.NAIR

¶10

RESPONDENTS :

¶11

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 001.

¶12

THE VAIKOM MUNICIPALITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VAIKOM, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN-686 141.

¶13

R1 BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER, SRI. MANOJ P. KUNJACHAN R2 BY ADV. SRI.SREELAL N.WARRIER R2 BY ADV. SMT.A.SREEKALA (VAIKOM)

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23-06-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

WP(C).No. 11289 of 2016 (I)

¶16

APPENDIX

¶17

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS :

¶18

EXT.P1:	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN I.A.NO.2034/2015 IN APPEAL NO.875/2015 DATED 27.10.2015 OF THE TRIBUNAL FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
EXT.P2:	TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR RENEWAL OF LICENSE DATED 08.02.2016 ALONG WITH APPLICATION FEES.
EXT.P3:	TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE MUNICIPAL COUNCIL DATED 22.02.2016.
EXT.P4:	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER REJECTING EXHIBIT P2 APPLICATION BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 27.02.2016

¶19

EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPTS DATED 07.03.2016.

¶20

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS :

¶21

EXT.R2(A) : PHOTOGRAPH OF THE BUILDING AND PREMISES.

¶22

/TRUE COPY/

¶23

PA TO JUDGE

¶24

K.VINOD CHANDRAN, J ----------------------------------------------W.P(C) No.11289 of 2016

¶25

Dated this the 23^rd day of June, 2016

¶26

J U D G M E N T

¶27

The petitioner was aggrieved by the non-acceptance of Ext.P2 renewal application of D&O licence filed before the second respondent. The facts as argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the second respondent would indicate that the petitioner had been on lease in the property from 1993 onwards and had been conducting a shop therein. The petitioner was carrying on the business with due licence from the Municipality and he had sought for re-construction of the building which was allowed by the Municipality. However, Later, the petitioner was issued with a demolition notice by the Municipality.

¶28

The learned counsel for the respondent Municipality disputes the contention that reconstruction was allowed. The learned counsel alleges that the original lease was only with respect to a small area and the petitioner has made additions to the building, thus encroaching upon the Government land.

¶29

In any event, the petitioner has filed an appeal against the demolition order before the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions, Thiruvananthapuram as Appeal No.875 of 2015. There is also an interim stay obtained in the said appeal

¶30

WP(C).11289/16 -:2:-

¶31

as is evident from Ext.P1. The petitioner was before this Court only for the reason of the licence for the present year having been declined. Since the issue is pending before the Tribunal, it is only proper that the petitioner be allowed to continue with the business subject to the result of the appeal before the Tribunal.

¶32

In the nature of the controversies raised and also the expediency urged by the Municipality in disposing of the matter, the Tribunal shall dispose of the matter within two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. The petitioner and the second respondent shall produce the certified copy of this judgment before the Tribunal on 13.07.2016, on which date they shall also appear before the Tribunal. The Tribunal shall give a further date of hearing and shall dispose of the matter as directed herein. Status-quo order shall continue till orders are issued by the Tribunal.

¶33

The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶34

Sd/- K.Vinod Chandran Judge

¶35

krj.24/6/16

K.G.Yahiya Ravuthar v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.G.Yahiya Ravuthar v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M.M. Babu Vs M.G. Rajamanickam

S.Sunil Kumar Vs the Kerala State Election Commission

Vimal Alias Thomas Vs State of Kerala

Tulsi Developers India Private Limited Vs Karumaloor Grama Panchayath

Joseph Mathew Vs Vaikom Municipality

Shaju Vs Alagappa Nagar Grama Panchayath