Disposed

Sujatha C.H. v. the Kannur Municipal Corporation

Kerala HC18 Dec 2019WP(C)/7992/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged a notice to close her hotel for operating without a trade licence. The Court directed the Municipal Corporation to hold a hearing involving the petitioner and the landlord within two weeks, then decide on future action and the pending licence application.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Secretary of the first respondent to hear the petitioner and the owner of the premises within two weeks and then decide on the future course of action regarding Ext.P4 and the pending app

Sujatha C.H. Vs the Kannur Municipal Corporation — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2019 / 27TH AGRAHAYANA, 1941

¶5

WP(C).No.7992 OF 2019(Y)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

SUJATHA C.H., AGED 53 YEARS D/O. PAITHAL, RESIDING AT 'NARAYANAM', THALAP, KANNUR - 2, PIN - 670 002.

¶8

BY ADVS. SRI.P.BHARATHAN SRI.ZUBAIR PULIKKOOL

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 THE KANNUR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, KANNUR - 670 002.

¶11

2 THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.

¶12

SRI.K.K.CHANDRAN PILLAI (SR.) SMT.S.AMBILY SMT.NAMITHA NAMBIAR SRI.SAJI THOMAS SR.GP. - RAJASEKHARAN NAIR

¶13

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18.12.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

WP(C).No.7992 OF 2019(Y)

¶15

¶16

JUDGMENT

¶17

The petitioner has filed this writ petition impugning Ext.P4 notice issued by the Secretary of the first respondent - Kannur Municipal Corporation, as per which, she has been asked to close down a “Hotel” being run by her without licence. The petitioner says that Ext.P4 is untenable, since she has been running the business for the last several years and alleges that Ext.P4 has been issued at the instance of the landlord of the building, who is now trying to evict her. The petitioner, therefore, prays that Ext.P4 be set aside.

¶18

In response, Smt.S.Ambily, the learned standing counsel for the Corporation, submitted that the afore allegations of the petitioner are untenable and that Ext.P4 has been issued solely because she is not in possession of a valid Trade Licence for running a business. She adds that, in fact, the petitioner was earlier running a Tailoring Unit in the premises but that she has converted it into a Hotel without obtaining any permission from the Corporation and therefore, that Ext.P4 is irreproachable. He, therefore, prays that this writ petition be dismissed.

¶19

When I consider the afore submissions, it is without doubt that if the petitioner has been issued Ext.P4 on the

¶20

WP(C).No.7992 OF 2019(Y)

¶21

¶22

allegation that she is not in possession of any licence to run the hotel. Of course, the learned counsel for the petitioner asserts that an application for this purpose is already pending before the Secretary. I am, therefore, of the view that the Secretary must now hear the petitioner, as also the landlord of the building and take an appropriate decision as to the future course pursuant to Ext.P4, as also on the application alleged to have been made by the petitioner.

¶23

Resultantly, this writ petition is ordered and I direct the Secretary of the first respondent - Corporation to hear the petitioner, as well as the owner of the premises, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment and then take a decision on the future course of action to be adopted pursuant to Ext.P4, as also on the application of the petitioner for Trade Licence, if it is still pending.

¶24

The resultant order shall be issued by the Secretary without any delay but not later than two weeks after the parties are heard in terms of this judgment.

¶25

Sd/- DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶26

Stu

¶27

JUDGE

¶28

WP(C).No.7992 OF 2019(Y)

¶29

¶30

APPENDIX

¶31

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶32

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE LICENSE FEE RECEIPT ISSUED BY 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶33

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE CONSENT LETTER DATED 6-2-2014 GIVEN BY THE LANDLORD TO THE PETITIONER.

¶34

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED FOR THE APPLICATION RECEIVED BY THE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ON 26/11/2018.

¶35

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF NOTICE FROM THE 1ST RESPONDENT RECEIVED BY THE PETITIONER ON 11-3-2019.

¶36

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL

¶37

//TRUE COPY//

¶38

P.A TO JUDGE.

Sujatha C.H. v. the Kannur Municipal Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sujatha C.H. v. the Kannur Municipal 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

Kalyani, Vs Revenue Divisional Officer

Ashokan Vs the State of Kerala

Manoj Vs State of Kerala

Sukumohanan Vs the State of Kerala

C.G.George Vs the State of Kerala

Immanuel Crushers and Mines (P) Ltd. Vs Union of India