Dismissed

Lijuthomas v. the Secretary

Kerala HC16 Nov 2019WP(C)/11780/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging a stop memo issued due to lack of trade licence. The Court held that since a partition suit was pending, the Corporation could not process the licence application for either party and refused to issue orders in the writ petition without civil court intervention.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed confirming the Ext.P3 stop memo; liberty granted to parties to approach the competent Civil Court.

Lijuthomas Vs the Secretary — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶4

SATURDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2019 / 25TH KARTHIKA, 1941 WP(C).No.11780 OF 2019(V)

¶5

PETITIONER:

¶6

LIJU THOMAS, AGED 46 YEARS, S/O. LATE V.J. THOMAS, MADATHIPARAMBIL HOUSE, KALOOR P.O., 682 017, ELAMKULAM VILLAGE, KANAYANNUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶7

BY ADVS. SRI.SAKIR.K.H. SRI.S.R.SREEJITH

¶8

RESPONDENTS:

¶9

1 THE SECRETARY, KOCHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, CORPORATION, KOCHI - 682 011.

¶10

2 THE HEALTH INSEPCTOR GRADE II, CIRCLE NO. 16, KOCHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, KOCHI - 682 011.

¶11

3 LIBI M. THOMAS, AGED 46 YEARS, D/O. LATE V.J. THOMAS, RESIDING AT MADATHIPARAMBIL HOUSE, KALOOR P.O., 682 017, ELAMKULAM VILLAGE, KANAYANNUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶12

R1-2 BY SRI.BABU KARUKAPADATH,SC,COCHIN CORPORATION R3 BY ADV. SRI.ABRAHAM K.JOHN R3 BY ADV. SMT.C.G.ARUNDHATHI

¶13

SRI.RAJASEKHARAN NAIR, SR.GP

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16.11.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

WP(C).No.11780 OF 2019 2

¶16

JUDGMENT

¶17

The petitioner says that he is the son of late V.J.Thomas, who

¶18

was the owner of the shop room bearing Door No.70/286 (old No.44/574), within the territorial limits of Kochi Municipal Corporation. He concedes that the shop room originally belonged to his father and after his death, a partition suit has been filed by his sibling, the 3^rd respondent herein, against the properties of their father.

¶19

The petitioner says that he has been running the business in the shop room in question ever since the death of his father and that all his siblings, except the 3^rd respondent, had given their consent enabling him to obtain a Trade Licence. He concedes that the 3^rd respondent has not done so and that this has led the Corporation of Kochi to issue Ext.P3 stop memo. The petitioner, therefore, prays that Ext.P3 be set aside and he be allowed to operate the shop room in terms of law.

¶20

The learned Standing Counsel for Corporation of Kochi submits that Ext.P3 has been issued only because the petitioner is not presently enjoying a Trade Licence and since no business can be allowed in the absence of such a licence. He thus asserts that

¶21

WP(C).No.11780 OF 2019 3

¶22

Ext.P3 is irreproachable and prays that this writ petition be dismissed.

¶23

The learned counsel appearing for the 3^rd respondent submits that the petitioner cannot unilaterally apply for and claim a Trade Licence to do business in the shop room in question since his client has also a similar claim and has made an application for Trade Licence. He contends that his client is also equally entitled to run the business, as much as it is so asserted by the petitioner and therefore, that unless the competent Civil Court, before which the partition suit is pending, issues appropriate orders in favour of either of the parties, Corporation of Kochi cannot allow the petitioner to run the business or issue him a Trade Licence.

¶24

When I consider the afore submissions and examine the materials on record, it is without doubt that there is a civil dispute between the petitioner and the 3^rd respondent, which is obvious from the fact that a suit is also pending between them. Therefore, I cannot find fault with the Corporation of Kochi in having issued Ext.P3, since it is ineluctable that no person - including the petitioner or the 3^rd respondent - can run a business within the area of Kochi Corporation without obtaining a Trade Licence. That said, since Corporation of Kochi is incapacitated from considering the application of either the petitioner or the 3^rd

¶25

WP(C).No.11780 OF 2019 4

¶26

respondent for Trade Licence, in the absence of any apposite orders from the Civil Court, I cannot issue any orders in this writ petition.

¶27

In the afore circumstances,I dismiss this writ petition confirming Ext.P3; however, leaving liberty to both the petitioner and the 3^rd respondent to approach the competent Civil Court and obtain necessary orders, based on which the Corporation will process their respective applications in terms of law.

¶28

Sd/-

¶29

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶30

JUDGE

¶31

sru

¶32

WP(C).No.11780 OF 2019 5

¶33

APPENDIX

¶34

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶35

EXHIBIT P1	TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING TAX RECEIPT DATED 22.2.2019 ISSUED BY KOCHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION WITH REGARD TO DOOR NO. 70/286 OLD NUMBER 44/574.
EXHIBIT P2	TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S. NO. 138/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE HONOURABLE SUB COURT, ERNAKULAM.
EXHIBIT P3	TRUE COPY OF THE STOP MEMO NOTICE NO 100/2018-19 DATED 25.3.2019 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER
EXHIBIT P4	TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION NO. 17880 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR GETTING LICENCE IN THE YEAR 2019-2020.
EXHIBIT P5	TRUE COPY OF THE CONSENT LETTER SIGNED BY THE BROTHER AND SISTER OF THE PETITIONER TO THE PETITIONER
EXHIBIT P6	TRUE COPY OF THE INCOME TAX RETURN VERIFICATION FORM ALONG WITH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2018- 19.
EXHIBIT P7	TRUE COPY OF THE INCOME TAX RETURN VERIFICATION FORM ALONG WITH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2016- 17.
EXHIBIT P8	TRUE COPY OF THE INCOME TAX RETURN VERIFICATION FORM ALONG WITH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014- 2015.
EXHIBIT P9	TRUE COPY OF THE INCOME TAX RETURN VERIFICATION FORM ALONG WITH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013- 14.
EXHIBIT P10	TRUE COPY OF THE INCOME TAX RETURN VERIFICATION FORM ALONG WITH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012- 13.

¶36

WP(C).No.11780 OF 2019 6

¶37

EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE INCOME TAX RETURN VERIFICATION FORM ALONG WITH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 201112. EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 26.06.2019 ISSUED FROM M/S NAMBIAR MARKETING ASSOCIATES. EXHIBIT P13 TRUE COPY OF CERTIFICATE DATED 24.06.2019 ISSUED FROM VYAPARI VYAPARI VYAVASAYI EKOPANA AMITHI, KALOOR UNIT. EXHIBIT P14 THE ORIGINAL OF VARIOUS BILLS (24 NUMBERS) ISSUED BY THE AUTHORISED DISTRIBUTORS OF VARIOUS MOBILE TELECOMUNICATION COMPANIES NAMELY THANNICKEL AGENCIES, KARAKKATTU COMMUNICATIONS, POCUDYIL AGNECIES, MERGER INDIA, ONENESS TELE MEDIA, SELLAIR COMMUNICATIONS, ANJANEYA COMMUNICATIONS, KAINIKAT AGNECIES AND GEETHA ENTERPRISES.

¶38

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:

¶39

EXHIBIT R3(1) TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 22.3.2019 SENT TO THE COUNSEL FOR THE 3RD RESPONDENT EXHIBIT R3(2) TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY THIS RESPONDENT/4TH DEFENDANT IN O.S.NO.138/2017 OF THE HON'BLE SUB COURT, ERNAKULAM EXHIBIT R3(3) TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE RECEIPT NO.36900 FOR THE PERIOD 2018-2019 OBTAINED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT UNDER THE RIGHT OF INFORMATION ACT EXHIBIT R3(4) TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE LETTER NO.ISO/MOH-12/PIO/25797/2019 DATED 23.9.2019 ISSUED BY SUPERINTENDENT OF CORPORATION OF KOCHI EXHIBIT R3(5) TRUE COPY OF THE I.A.NO.2951/2019 IN O.S NO.138/2017 FILED BY THE PETITIONER HEREIN BEFORE THE HONOURABLE SUB COURT, ERNAKULAM

Lijuthomas v. the Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lijuthomas v. the Secretary

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

Leelamma Thomas Vs State of Kerala

Jose Vs Kumbalam Grama Panchayath

P.L.John @ Suni Vs the Kumbalam Grama Panchayat

Faziludeen Vs State of Kerala

Rajamma Joseph Vs State of Kerala

Sivanandhan T.P Vs the Corporation of Kochi