Disposed

Appu K.K. v. Irinjalakkuda Muncipality

Kerala HC14 Oct 2016WP(C)/22088/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Kuruman closed a writ petition where the petitioner failed to apply for a license for a shop lacking one. The court held that the petitioner abused the process of law by not filing applications for all shops where business was conducted.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is closed; the petitioner is not entitled to carry on business in the shop where no license application was filed.

Appu K.K. Vs Irinjalakkuda Muncipality — Writ and Judicial Review | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2016/22ND ASWINA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 22088 of 2016 (I)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

APPU K.K. AGED 67 YEARS, S/O. KORU, KAIMAPARAMBIL HOUSE, IRINJALAKUDA, THRISSUR DISTRICT

¶8

BY ADV. SMT.P.R.REENA

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1. IRINJALAKKUDA MUNCIPALITY REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY MUNICIPAL OFFICE, IRINJALAKUDA, THRISSUR PIN 680 121

¶11

2. SECRETARY IRINJALAKUDA MUNICIPALITY MUNICIPAL OFFICE, IRINJALAKUDA, THRISSUR PIN 680 121

¶12

ADDNL. RESPONDENT IMPLEADED

¶13

ADDL.R3 N.N. RAVINDRANATH, S/O. NARAYANAN, NADUPURACKAL HOUSE, PESHKAR ROAD, IRINJALAKUDA, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶14

ADDITIONAL RESPONDENT IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 14.10.2016 IN I.A. NO.12388/2016

¶15

R1,R2 BY ADV. SRI.K.K.CHANDRAN PILLAI (SR.) R1,R2 BY ADV. SMT.P.ELSAMMA JOSEPH R1,R2 BY ADV. SRI.K.V.KRISHNAKUMAR R1,R2 BY ADV. SRI.ABILASH THOMAS RADDL.3 BY ADV. SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR) R BY SMT.S.AMBILY

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14-10-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

WP(C).No. 22088 of 2016 (I)

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶20

P1 TRUE COPY OF THE BILL DATED 19-02-2014 OF THE MUNICIPALITY

¶21

P2 TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING TAX RECEIPT DATED 15-10-2015

¶22

P3 TRUE COPY OF THE PROFESSIONAL TAX RECEIPT DATED 15-10-2015

¶23

P4 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 19-10-2015 ISSUED BY THE MUNICIPALITY

¶24

P4(A) TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 19-10-2015 ISSUED BY THE MUNICIPALITY COLLECTING LICENSE FEE AND INFORMATION DATED 19-10-2015 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER

¶25

P5 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION TO THE PETITIONER DATD 17-06-2016

¶26

P6 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 20-06-2016 OF THE MUNICIPALITY

¶27

P8 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR DATED 27.7.2016

¶28

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS

NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.A.TO JUDGE

JJJ

K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.

¶34

-----------------------------------------W.P.(C) No. 22088 of 2016 (I)

¶35

-----------------------------------------Dated: 14^th October, 2016

¶36

J U D G M E N T

¶37

The petitioner was aggrieved with the non issuance

¶38

of D&O license by the Municipality for carrying on an Authorised Wholesale Ration Depot (AWD) under the Public Distribution System.

¶39

The Municipality submits that the petitioner is conducting business in two door numbers, one of which is licensed by the Municipality. In the other room there is not even a license application submitted, is the contention. The application at Ext.P6 is said to be made as against the room in which license has already been issued. The additional respondent impleaded is the owner of the property in which the ration shops are carried on.

¶40

W.P.(C) No. 22088/2016 -2-

¶41

Considering the submissions of the Municipality, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner has resorted to a clear abuse of process, especially since the petitioner has not even thought it fit to apply for a license in the other shop, in which also the business is carried on. As of now, the petitioner submits that, as per Ext.P8, the District Collector has permitted the shifting of the premises, which would be done within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this judgment. However, the petitioner shall not be entitled to carry on any business in the room in which there is no license obtained nor an application filed, even during the said period.

¶42

The writ petition stands closed. No Costs.

¶43

Sd/K.VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE

¶44

jjj 14/10/16

Appu K.K. v. Irinjalakkuda Muncipality

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Appu K.K. v. Irinjalakkuda Muncipality

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

V.P.Hamsa Vs Mananthavady Municipality

Jose Vs Alagappanagar Grama Panchayath

Suresh George Vs Thrikkakara Municipality

V.v.Minerals Vs Union of India

M/S Kerala Communicators Cable Ltd. Vs Union of India

Arun.S Vs District Collector, Palakkad