Disposed

Mathew James v. Kidangoor Grama Panchayath, Kottayam

Kerala HC28 Nov 2016WP(C)/21783/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala closed the writ petition declining to adjudicate on the merits. The court permitted the petitioner to submit a fresh application for license renewal to the first respondent, considering the underlying dispute with the landlord has been settled.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is closed permitting the petitioner to move a fresh application before the 1st respondent.

Mathew James Vs Kidangoor Grama Panchayath, Kottayam — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN

¶4

MONDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2016/7TH AGRAHAYANA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 21783 of 2015 (W)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

MATHEW JAMES S/O.CHACKO, VADAKKENETHU HOUSE, KIDANGOOR VILLAGE.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.THOMAS ABRAHAM (NILACKAPPILLIL)

¶9

RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS:-:

¶10

1. KIDANGOOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH KIDANGOOR, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686 572, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶11

2. M.T.GEORGE S/O.THOMAS, MULACKEL HOUSE, KIDANGOOR, PIN - 686 572, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.

¶12

R1 BY ADVS. SRI.V.G.ARUN SRI.T.R.HARIKUMAR R2 BY ADV. SRI.P.C.HARIDAS

¶13

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28-11-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

MLG

¶15

WP(C).No. 21783 of 2015 (W)

¶16

APPENDIX

¶17

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶18

EXHIBIT P1. TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE RENT AGREEMENT DATED 14.03.2011 EXECUTED BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶19

EXHIBIT P2. TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE PLAINT DATED 14.07.2014 IN O.S.NO.235/2014 OF THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, PALA.

¶20

EXHIBIT P3. TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE WRITTEN STATED FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN O.S.NO.235/2014 OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, PALA.

¶21

EXHIBIT P4. TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE LICENSE DATED 26.04.2014 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶22

EXHIBIT P5. TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 20.06.2015 WITH THE SUPPORTING AFFIDAVIT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶23

EXHIBIT P6. TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 26.06.2015 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶24

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.S TO JUDGE

MLG

K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.

¶29

W.P.(C) No. 21783 of 2015 (W)

¶30

Dated: 28^th November, 2016

¶31

J U D G M E N T

¶32

The petitioner was declined renewal of license

¶33

for the earlier year for reason of a pending dispute with the landlord.

¶34

It is submitted by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and the landlord (R2) that the dispute is settled and in such circumstance, the petitioner could move the 1^st respondent for renewal afresh.

¶35

Leaving open all contentions, the writ petition is closed permitting the petitioner to move a fresh application before the 1^st respondent, which will be considered in accordance with law.

¶36

Sd/-

¶37

K.VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE

¶38

jjj 28/11/16

Mathew James v. Kidangoor Grama Panchayath, Kottayam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mathew James v. Kidangoor Grama Panchayath, Kottayam

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

Mahatma Gandhi University Vs Principal, Rajagiri College of Social Sciences

S.Arumugham Vs Municipal Council Ktym,Rep: by Chairman

Geetha M. Vs the Kulukallur Grama Panchayath

Varghese Kurian Vs Alangad Grama Panchayath

Unnikrishnan Vs the Vellinezhi Grama Panchayath

Thankamaniyamma Vs State of Kerala