Partly allowed

A.M. Faisal v. Thrissur Corporation

Kerala HC2 Nov 2018WP(C)/12446/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition seeking direction to Thrissur Corporation Secretary to accept renewal application for D & O license despite pending litigation. Court directed Secretary to issue notice, conduct hearing, and decide within a month without insisting on No Objection Certificate from landlord.

What did the court decide?

Direction to Secretary to issue notice to petitioner and landlord, conduct hearing, and decide renewal application within one month without insisting on No Objection Certificate from landlord.

A.M. Faisal Vs Thrissur Corporation — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

¶4

FRIDAY ,THE 02ND DAY OF NOVEMBER 2018 / 11TH KARTHIKA, 1940

¶5

WP(C).No. 12446 of 2018

¶6

PETITIONER/S:

¶7

A.M. FAISAL, AGED 54 YEARS, ASMA MANZIL, PANOOR, THALASSERY - 670 692, KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.P.K.ANIL

¶9

RESPONDENT/S:

¶10

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

¶11

2 THE SECRETARY, THRISSUR CORPORATION, THRISSUR - 680 001.

¶12

3 PROF. DR SAYEED HUSSAIN SHAH, AGED 76 YEARS, S/O. PROF. SAYED MOHYIDHEEN SHAH,'SHAHABAD', THRISSUR DISTRICT - 680 027.

¶13

R1 & R2 BY SRI. SANTHOSH P.PODUVAL, SC, THRISSUR CORPORATION

¶14

R3 BY ADVS.SRI.E.M.ABDUL KHADER SMT.AMRIN FATHIMA SMT.M.A.VAHEEDA BABU SMT.V.R.LAKSHMI SRI.AVINASH P RAVEENDRAN SRI.BABU KARUKAPADATH SRI.K.M.FAISAL (KALAMASSERY) SRI.MITHUN BABY JOHN SRI.P.U.VINOD KUMAR SRI.RAHUL ROY SRI. SANTHOSH P.PODUVAL SC THRISSUR CORPORATION

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02.11.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

WP(C).No. 12446 of 2018 2

¶17

JUDGMENT

¶18

This writ petition is filed by the petitioner

¶19

seeking the following reliefs:-

¶20

“a) Issue a writ of mandamus or any appropriate writ order or direction, directing the 2^nd respondent to accept Ext.P2 application filed under Section 447 of the Kerala Municipalities Act and pass orders in accordance with law.

¶21

b) grant such other reliefs prayed for from time to time including cost of these proceedings.”

¶22

Material facts for the disposal of the writ petition are as follows:-

¶23

Petitioner is running a hotel by name “Doublex” in a building situate in Sy.No.1183/3 of Thrissur village, owned by the 3^rd respondent and within the limits of the 1^st and 2^nd respondents. According to the petitioner, the business was being carried on, after securing licenses from the Municipality. However, when the petitioner submitted an application for renewal of the D & O license for the ensuing year 2018-19, the application is not considered for the

¶24

reason that petitioner is carrying out certain unauthorized construction in the premises and unless

¶25

WP(C).No. 12446 of 2018 3

¶26

and until, petitioner demolish the same, the renewal of the license cannot be granted.

¶27

A statement is filed by 1^st and 2^nd respondents justifying their stand adopted in not renewing the license. It is also stated that, since, unauthorized constructions are carried out by the petitioner,

¶28

proceedings under Section 406 of the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994 is initiated, and those

¶29

proceedings are also pending. The 3^rd respondent has filed a very detailed counter affidavit enumerating the circumstances under which, the petitioner was put in possession of the building and the unauthorized construction carried out by the petitioner in the premises in question. It is also pointed out that the

¶30

rent control proceedings instituted by the 3^rd respondent is pending before the jurisdictional Rent Controller. It is also pointed out that the 3^rd

¶31

respondent has instituted a suit before the

¶32

jurisdictional Civil Court seeking injunction against

¶33

the petitioner from carrying out any unauthorized construction, and therefore the consequential actions are taken by the petitioner. Anyhow, these are all matters to be considered by the Rent Controller as

¶34

WP(C).No. 12446 of 2018 4

¶35

well as the Civil court, wherein, proceedings are pending. Now, petitioner is concerned only with the non consideration of the renewal application for D & O license for the year 2018.

¶36

I have heard respective counsel across the Bar and perused the pleadings and the documents on record.

¶37

Taking into account, the circumstances pointed

¶38

out above, there will be a direction to the 2^nd

¶39

respondent to issue notice to the petitioner as well as the 3^rd respondent and conduct a hearing in respect of the renewal application submitted by the petitioner

¶40

for the year 2018-19. I make it clear that the Corporation shall not insist for the NOC from the landlord, however, all other disabilities which the petitioner is having for renewal of the D & O license, can be taken note of by the Secretary and take appropriate action or pass appropriate orders in the application submitted by the petitioner. I also make

¶41

it clear that, if any license is issued by the Secretary of the Corporation, that will not stand in the way of the competent Civil court as well as the Rent Controller to adjudicate the proceedings before

¶42

WP(C).No. 12446 of 2018 5

¶43

them in accordance with law, untrammeled by any such action taken by the Municipality or any observations and directions contained in this judgment. A decision, after hearing all concerned, shall be taken within a month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶44

The writ petition is disposed of, accordingly.

Sd/SHAJI P.CHALY

JUDGE

uu 02.11.2018

WP(C).No. 12446 of 2018 6

¶49

APPENDIX

¶50

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶51

EXHIBIT P1. TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED 9.3.2018 SHOWING THE PAYMENT OF THE TAX WITH RESPECT TO THE ABOVE SAID PROPERTY EXHIBIT P2. TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 17.3.2018 EXHIBIT P3. TRUE COPY OF THE DECLARATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 17.3.2018

¶52

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:-

¶53

EXHIBIT R3(a)	A TRUE COPY OF THE FIRST COMMISSION REPORT ON THE BASIS OF HIS INSPECTION ON 14.11.2016 IN I.A. NO.21903/2016 IN O.S.NO.6143/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE HON'BLE MUNSIFF'S COURT, THRISSUR, AND COPIES OF SOME OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS SUBMITTED BY THE COMMISSIONER ON THE BASIS OF HIS INSPECTION ON 14.11.2016
EXHIBIT R3(b)	A TRUE COPY OF THE 2ND REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE COMMISSIONER ON THE BASIS OF HIS INSPECTION ON 05.12.2016 IN O.S. NO.6143/2016 AND COPIED OF SOME OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS TAKEN BY THE COMMISSIONER AT THE TIME OF HIS INSPECTION ON 05.12.2016
EXHIBIT R3(c)	A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON ORDER DATED 12.4.2017 IN I.A. NOS. 21902/16, 22856/16 AND 3721/2017 IN O.S. NO.6143/2016 OF THE HON'BLE MUNSIFF'S COURT, THRISSUR
EXHIBIT R3(d)	A TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 30.11.2016 SUBMITTED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT

¶54

WP(C).No. 12446 of 2018 7

¶55

EXHIBIT R3(e) A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 06.11.2017 IN W.P.(C). No.26320/2017

¶56

EXHIBIT R3(f) A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 15.3.2018 OF THE RESPONDENT CORPORATION

¶57

//TRUE COPY//

¶58

P.A. TO JUDGE

A.M. Faisal v. Thrissur Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.M. Faisal v. Thrissur Corporation

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

N.v.Paulose Vs Ajayakumar I.A.S

Cable Network Operators Welfare Association Vs Asianet Digital Network [P] Limited

K.M.Mosah Vs the Secretary

P. Sasikala Vs Thiruvananthapuram Corporation

Pushpavally Vs District Collector, Alappuzha

Hari Prasad Vs the District Collector