Dismissed

M.C.Vinod Kumar, v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC19 Jul 2019WP(C)/7215/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought mandamus directing the Calicut Municipal Corporation to renew trade licenses for their rooms in a commercial building. When the Corporation conceded in the counter affidavit that it had already sanctioned the applications, the petitioners withdrew the petition. It was dismissed as withdrawn.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn by the petitioners.

M.C.Vinod Kumar, Vs State of Kerala — Consumer Protection | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF JULY 2019 / 28TH ASHADHA, 1941

¶5

WP(C).No.7215 of 2019

¶6

PETITIONERS:

¶7

1 M.C.VINOD KUMAR, AGED 47 YEARS, S/O.K.P.BASKARAN NAIR, 24/1733 D8, DHANALAKSHMI JEWELRY, PVS SHOPPING COMPLEX, CHERIYA MANKAVU07.

¶8

2 DR.MINI PANIKKER, AGED 56 YEARS, D/O RAMAKRISHNA PANIKKER, ASWATHI, SAROWARAM ROAD, PALATTU THAZHAM, CALICUT, CIVIL STATION.P.O, PIN-673020.

¶9

3 M.K.HARRIS, AGED 51 YEARS, S/O ABDULLA, MALAYANKANDI, KADAVATHUR.P.O, THRIPPANGOTTUR, KANNUR, PIN-670676.

¶10

4 FIROSE KHAN.M, AGED 45 YEARS, S/O SEYTHALI, MALAKKAL HOUSE, KACHERI KUZHI VAYAL, SHARADA MANDIRAM.P.O, KOLATHARA, PIN-673004.

¶11

5 M.K.RAJENDRAN, S/O.M.A.KRISHNAN KUTTY, SIVALAYAM, O.G.ROAD, THIRUVANNOOR.P.O, PIN-673029.

¶12

6 KOYA MON.K.V., S/O MAMU, KARAPPAN VEEDU, IKKATTIRI PARAMBU, KINASSERI, GURUVAYOORAPPAN COLLEGE.P.O, PIN-673014. BY ADV. SRI.E.NARAYANAN

¶13

RESPONDENTS:

¶14

1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT,LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT,GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,PIN-695001.

¶15

2 THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,PIN-695001.

¶16

3 THE CHIEF TOWN PLANNER, THE DEPARTMENT OF TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -695003.

¶17

4 THE TOWN PLANNER, DEPARTMENT OF TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT-673005.

¶18

5 THE CALICUT MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, BEACH ROAD,KOZHIKODE-673032. BY ADVS.SRI.G.SANTHOSH KUMAR, SC, KOZHIKODE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION SMT.BINDUMOL JOSEPH SRI.B.S.SYAMANTHAK

¶19

SRI.K.J. MANURAJ, GP

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19.07.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WP(C)7215 OF 2019

JUDGMENT

The petitioners, who are stated to be the tenants/owners of various rooms in commercial building, with building Nos.24/1733, A1 A2 A3 A4/1733/B1, B2, B5, B6, B7, B8, B9, B10, B11, 24/1733 D and D1, have filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the 5^th respondent (wrongly stated as 4^th respondent in relief No.1) to accept Exts.P24 to P29 applications for renewal of licence (trade licence) made by the petitioners and to issue necessary orders for renewing their licences. The petitioners have also sought for a declaration that the 5^th respondent Corporation is not justified in not accepting the applications for renewal of licence (trade licence) made by the petitioners and such an act on the part of the Corporation is against the fundamental rights of the petitioners.

¶25

On 11.03.2019, when this writ petition came up for admission, the learned Standing Counsel for the 5^th respondent Municipal Corporation sought time to get instructions.

¶26

Today, when the case is taken up for consideration,

¶27

¶28

WP(C)7215 OF 2019

¶29

a counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the 5^th respondent. Paragraphs 3 to 5 of the said counter affidavit read thus;

¶30

“3. The above writ petition is filed praying inter alia to direct the 4^th respondent to accept Exts.P24 to 29 applications. The petitioner has also sought to issue necessary orders for renewing D&O licenses to the petitioners 1 to 6. The above writ petition is not maintainable either in facts or on law. Petitioner has no cause of action to invoke jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against this respondent. The owner of the building has submitted an application bearing No.TP6/3766/2011 for regularization of unauthorized construction of a commercial building having an area of 1292.12 m² constructed in a residential zone. In pursuant to the aforesaid application by the owner of the building the Corporation sought opinion from the Chief Town Planner as per letter dated 08.04.2013. The aforesaid letter was forwarded through Regional Town Planner. The said authority issued a communication dated 18.05.2013 requiring the Corporation to resubmit the letter after curing certain defects. Thereupon on 07.05.2015 a reply letter was sent to the Chief Town Planner through the Regional Town Planner and it was returned on 04.12.2015 stating that the compounding fees is not correctly calculated. In the said letter it was also pointed out that the name, date and office seal of the Secretary were not stated/affixed. It is to be submitted

¶31

¶32

¶33

that after curing the defects, a communication was sent to the Government Secretary through the Chief Town Planner and Regional Town Planner on 08.06.2016.

¶34

It is respectfully submitted that the respondent Corporation has received a letter dated 20.03.2017 from the Regional Town Planner and another letter dated 15.04.2017 from the Chief Town Planner requiring the Corporation to explain the reasons for delay in forwarding the application for regularizing the unauthorized construction which was received in 2011. In the said letter the Corporation was also directed to furnish its explanation regarding the reasons for delay in forwarding the application and to submit the name and designations of the officers responsible for the delay in forwarding the application.

¶35

It is respectfully submitted that the averments and allegations in the writ petition that the respondent Corporation unilaterally converted the description of the petitioner's building as unauthorized is incorrect and hence hereby denied. The petitioners herein submitted their applications for renewal of D&O license after filing of this writ petition and the Corporation has sanctioned their applications.” (underline supplied)

¶36

The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that in view of the stand taken by the 5^th respondent in paragraph 5 of the counter affidavit, the petitioners do not want to prosecute this writ petition and the same may be

¶37

¶38

¶39

dismissed as withdrawn.

¶40

Recording the aforesaid submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners, this writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn.

¶41

It is made clear that this Court has not expressed anything as to the legality of renewal of trade licence granted by the 5^th respondent in relation to a building, which still continues as an unauthorised construction.

¶42

Sd/-

¶43

ANIL K. NARENDRAN JUDGE

¶44

M.C.Vinod Kumar, v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.C.Vinod Kumar, v. State of Kerala

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

Rajan Vs the Kottayi Grama Panchayat

Lakshmeesan Menon, Vs the Mulakkulam Grama Panchayat

Udayan P Vs State of Kerala

Muhammed Ismail Vs the District Collector

Chirayakkodu Vijayan, Vs Kerala State Election Commission

Sageer, Vs State of Kerala