Partly allowed

O.M.Bineesh v. the Thrissur Corporation, Thrissur

Kerala HC8 Jun 2016WP(C)/29385/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition, the High Court quashed the Corporation's order cancelling the petitioner's trade license due to a wrong room number in the application and a discrepancy in the stated business activity. The Court directed the Corporation to issue a new license for the correct premises for the intended fruit vending business and remitted the matter for fresh decision within two weeks.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order cancelling the trade license is quashed. The petitioner is directed to apply for renewal. The Corporation is directed to pass orders for a new license for the correct premises and p

O.M.Bineesh Vs the Thrissur Corporation, Thrissur — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF JUNE 2016/18TH JYAISHTA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).NO. 29385 OF 2010 (W)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

O.M.BINEESH,AGED 27 YEARS S/O.MOHANAN, ODIYATTIL HOUSE PATTIKKAD, EDAPPALAM.P.O., THRISSUR.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.P.K.SAJEEV

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. THE THRISSUR CORPORATION, THRISSUR, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,, THRISSUR.P.O.-680 001.

¶11

2. THE HEALTH OFFICER, CORPORATION OF THRISSUR, THRISSUR.P.O.-680 001.

¶12

3. SADANANDAN, S/O.KRISHNANKUTTY, KOCHIPARAMBATH HOUSE, PERINJANAM VILLAGE, DESOM,, KODUNGALLUR TALUK, PERINJANAM.P.O., 680 686.

¶13

R3 BY ADV. SRI.T.C.SURESH MENON R3 BY ADV. SRI.JIBU P THOMAS R3 BY ADV. SRI.P.S.APPU R3 BY ADV. SRI.C.A.ANOOP R1,2 BY ADV. SRI.K.P.VIJAYAN R1,2 BY ADV. SRI.V.M.SYAM KUMAR R1,2 BY ADV. SMT.KRIPA ELIZABETH MATHEWS R1&2 BY ADV. SRI.V.N.HARIDAS BY SRI.K.B.MOHAN DAS, SC.

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08-06-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

WP(C).NO. 29385 OF 2010 (W)

¶16

APPENDIX

¶17

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE RENT DEED DATED 28.09.2004

¶18

EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE LICENCE DATED 24.06.2006 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT

¶19

EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF RECEIPT NO.32456 DATED 05.03.2010 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT

¶20

EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF RECEIPT NO.32457 DATED 05.03.2010 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT

¶21

EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF RECEIPT NO.4647 DATED 29.04.2010 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT'S OFFICE

¶22

EXT.P6: TRUE COPY OF THE BILL DATED 04.06.2010 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT'S OFFICE

¶23

EXT.P7: TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT NO.1480 DATED 14.06.2010 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT'S OFFICE

¶24

EXT.P8: TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT NO.1481 DATED 14.06.2010 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT'S OFFICE

¶25

EXT.P9: TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S.NO.3393/2004 ON THE FILES OF MUNSIFF COURT, THRISSUR

¶26

EXT.P10: TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT IN O.S.NO.3393/2004

¶27

EXT.P11: TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 29.05.2010 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT

¶28

EXT.P12: TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED 04.06.2010 GIVEN BY THE PETITIONER

¶29

EXT.P13: TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 24.06.2010 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT

¶30

EXT.P14: TRUE COPY OF THE PAGE NO.41 OF VOLUME 1 OF THE PROPERTY TAX LIST FROM 1.4.1994 ONWARDS MAINTAINED IN THE OFFICE OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT AND OBTAINED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT.

¶31

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL

¶32

//TRUE COPY//

¶33

P A TO JUDGE

¶34

A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, J.

¶35

W.P.(C).NO.29385 OF 2010

¶36

Dated this the 8^th day of June, 2016

¶37

J U D G M E N T

¶38

The petitioner had taken a room on rent from the 3^rd respondent as per Ext.P1 rent deed dated 28.09.2004. It is the case of the petitioner that he took the room on rent for the purposes of conducting a fruit stall. In connection with the said business, he had also applied for a trade license from the 1^st respondent Corporation and he was granted Ext.P2 license dated 24.06.2006 showing the premises in which the trade was carried on as bearing Room No.XXV/130. It is stated that Ext.P2 license was renewed subsequently from time to time and the petitioner was carrying on business on the strength of the said license. While so, by Ext.P11 notice dated 29.05.2010, the petitioner was informed by the respondent Corporation that they had received a complaint from the 3^rd respondent stating that the petitioner had obtained the trade license showing a different premises and not the premises in which he was actually carrying on his business. The respondent

¶39

-2-

¶40

W.P.(C). No.29385 of 2010

¶41

Corporation was therefore of the view that steps had to be taken to cancel the trade license granted in the name of the petitioner. To Ext.P11 notice, the petitioner preferred Ext.P12 reply stating, inter alia, that he had furnished the number of the room, in the application for trade license, based on the information that he had received from the 3^rd respondent, and he was not aware of the alleged mistake in the number shown in the application form. The explanation of the petitioner was not accepted by the respondent Corporation which proceeded to issue Ext.P13 notice intimating the petitioner that his license under the Municipalities Act stood cancelled. In the writ petition, the petitioner impugns Ext.P13, inter alia, on the ground that, the petitioner's license could not have been cancelled solely on the ground that there was a mistake in the door number of the room in which the petitioner was carrying on business, more so when it was not in dispute that the petitioner had been allotted a room in the same building pursuant to Ext.P1 rent deed and he was carrying on a valid trade in the said premises.

¶42

A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the 1^st respondent wherein the stand taken in Ext.P13 is reiterated. It is

¶43

-3-

¶44

W.P.(C). No.29385 of 2010

¶45

further stated that inasmuch as the petitioner had shown a wrong room number in his application for obtaining trade license there was a misrepresentation on the part of the petitioner which disentitled him to a trade license from the respondent Corporation. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the 3^rd respondent, it is stated that the petitioner had, contrary to the terms of the rent agreement entered into with the 3^rd respondent, used the demised premises for the purposes of carrying on the business of a tea shop and a restaurant. It is in particular pointed out that this was contrary to the understanding in Ext.P1 rent deed where the petitioner indicated that he wanted to conduct a fruit stall. It is further stated that since the petitioner was running a kitchen, using a gas cylinder, in a room that was situated close to the electrical installation for the building, and the same posed a serious risk to the safety of the building in question, the 3^rd respondent had been informed by the authorities under the Kerala State Electricity Board that he would be proceeded against for violation of the provisions of the Electricity Act and Rules. It is under these circumstances, that the 3^rd respondent opposes the continued grant of trade licence to the petitioner. It is also stated in the counter affidavit of the 3^rd respondent that the door number

¶46

-4-

¶47

W.P.(C). No.29385 of 2010

¶48

pertaining to the premises where the petitioner is functioning is XXV/72 and not XXV/130 as indicated in the application of the petitioner for trade license.

¶49

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Standing counsel for the 1^st and 2^nd respondents and the learned counsel for the 3^rd respondent.

¶50

On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made across the bar, I find that Ext.P13 order of the respondent Corporation is premised on the contention that the petitioner had applied for a trade license by showing the door number of his premises as XXV/130 whereas in fact the premises where he was functioning had the door No.XXV/72 assigned to it. The counter affidavit of the 3^rd respondent would show that, pursuant to Ext.P1 rent deed, the petitioner was actually assigned the premises bearing Door No.XXV/72 and not XXV/130. It would appear, however, that the petitioner while submitting his application for trade license erroneously mentioned the figure of XXV/130 assuming that to be the door number which was allotted to him. Further, as it is not in dispute that the premises was taken

¶51

-5-

¶52

W.P.(C). No.29385 of 2010

¶53

on rent for the purposes of conducting a business in the sale of fruits, I am of the view that the trade license issued in respect of the petitioner, although indicates tea, coffee, fridge etc, ought not to be permitted since the arrangement between the petitioner and the 3^rd respondent was for taking the premises on rent for the conduct of business in fruits. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is carrying on business in fruits, and the vending of tea and coffee etc was only incidental to the main business of selling fruits. It is submitted that the petitioner intends only to carry on trade in fruits hereafter. Taking note of the said submission of counsel for the petitioner, I am of the view that for the future period the petitioner can be granted a trade licence to vend fruits and not for any other purposes. The respondent Corporation shall ensure that the trade licence given to the petitioner, if he satisfies all the conditions necessary for the grant, is only for the said purpose and nothing else. The respondent Corporation shall also, while issuing the trade licence to the petitioner for the future period, refer to the Door Number of the premises of the petitioner as Door No. No.XXV/72, as this is the door number that was recognised by the 3^rd respondent in the rent deed executed with the petitioner. To enable the respondent

¶54

-6-

¶55

W.P.(C). No.29385 of 2010

¶56

to do so, I quash Ext.P13 order and direct the petitioner to prefer a formal application for renewal of the trade license within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The respondents shall pass orders on the same in accordance with the directions in the judgment within a period of two weeks thereafter.

¶57

Sd/- A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE

¶58

mns/8/6/16

¶59

W.P.(C). No.29385 of 2010

¶60

-7-

O.M.Bineesh v. the Thrissur Corporation, Thrissur

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

O.M.Bineesh v. the Thrissur Corporation, Thrissur

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

The Manager Vs Smt.Jitha

Meeramma Vs State of Kerala

K.a.Anto Vs the State of Kerala

Shejith.a.J. Vs Union of India

Dr.B.Jayaprakashini Vs State of Kerala

M.G.Sivaraman Vs Kothamangalam Municipality