Allowed

Sajikumar.S.L., v. Additional Chief Secretary

Kerala HC4 Jan 2022WP(C)/24112/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought to set aside orders cancelling his taxi meter repair licence based on a landlord complaint. The Court held the cancellation was arbitrary due to pending litigation and granted relief.

What did the court decide?

Exts.P9 and P12 set aside. Directions to take a decision on Ext.P5 application ignoring the cancelled orders.

Sajikumar.S.L., Vs Additional Chief Secretary — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 4^TH DAY OF JANUARY 2022 / 14TH POUSHA, 1943 WP(C) NO. 24112 OF 2021

¶5

PETITIONER:

¶6

SAJIKUMAR.S.L., AGED 40 YEARS S/O.LEKSHMIPATHY, T.C. 18/640, LATHIKA BHAVAN, ASRAMAM ROAD, PUNNACKAMUGAL, ARAMADA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 032.

¶7

BY ADVS. R.T.PRADEEP M.BINDUDAS K.C.HARISH

¶8

RESPONDENTS:

¶9

1 ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY, CONSUMER AFFAIRS DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶10

2 CONTROLLER, LEGAL METROLOGY, LEGAL METROLOGY CONTROL OFFICE, VIKAS BAHVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 033.

¶11

BY SMT.VINITHA B, SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶12

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04.01.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WP(C) No.24112/2021

: 2 :

J U D G M E N T

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Dated this the 4^th day of January, 2022

¶18

The petitioner, who has found a vocation in repairing taxi metres (both mechanical and electronic), has approached this Court seeking to set aside Exts.P9 and P12 and to direct the 2^nd respondent to take a decision on Ext.P5 dehors Exts.P9 and P12.

¶19

The petitioner is engaged in repairing taxi metres under a licence issued by the 2^nd respondent since the year 2003. In 2003, he started work under the name CL Meter Works. In 2011, he shifted the business premises to a rented building. The rental agreement for 11 months duration was extended till 2016. The petitioner states that the landlord of the building wanted himself to be inducted in petitioner’s business, which was agreed to. Later, the landlord wanted to get the petitioner’s licence transferred in his name. There was

¶20

WP(C) No.24112/2021

¶21

: 3 :

¶22

a difference of opinion and the petitioner had to file a Civil Suit to restrain the landlord from illegally evicting the petitioner. The landlord filed a Rent Control Petition to evict the petitioner.

¶23

The petitioner shifted his business to another building, which was taken on rent as per Ext.P1. The petitioner submitted an application for renewal of licence issued by the 2^nd respondent. The petitioner also sought to change the name of the Unit from 'SL Meter Works' to 'CL Meter Works'. The application was allowed as per Ext.P2 and the licence was extended up to 31.12.2017. The landlords under Ext.P1 Rent Deed informed the petitioner that they do not intend to extend the lease period beyond 31.12.2018.

¶24

While the petitioner was in search of alternate space, Ext.P3 show-cause dated 03.12.2018 was served on him by the 2^nd respondent proposing to cancel Ext.P2 licence granted, on the ground that a dealership business and workshop were conjointly run in the same premises. In the meanwhile, the petitioner obtained another premises to run

¶25

WP(C) No.24112/2021

¶26

: 4 :

¶27

the business, as per Ext.P4 rent deed dated 03.12.2018 and made Ext.P5 application for change of name and address of the Unit and for renewal of licence.

¶28

The 2^nd respondent, however, cancelled the licence issued to the petitioner by order dated 28.06.2019, as per Ext.P12. The petitioner challenged the cancellation filing Ext.P11 appeal. The appeal was dismissed by Ext.P12 order of the 1^st respondent finding that there is violation of norms and guidelines of Legal Metrology Department. The 1^st respondent directed the petitioner to file a fresh application for licence. Aggrieved by Exts.P9 and P12 orders, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.

¶29

Ext.P9 order has been passed based on a complaint of the landlord that the rent agreement produced by the petitioner is concocted. When the relationship of the petitioner with the landlord was strained, the respondents ought not have relied on the complaint of the landlord, to deny renewal of licence which was pre-existing. The complaint of the landlord was with an intent to evict the petitioner-tenant.

¶30

WP(C) No.24112/2021

¶31

: 5 :

¶32

The petitioner is being forced to apply for fresh licence, but as per the existing Kerala Rules, the petitioner will not be qualified for fresh licence. In fact, the Kerala Rules are otiose since the subsequent Central Rules do not prescribe any qualification for recognition of test centers, contended the petitioner.

¶33

The 2^nd respondent-Controller, Legal Metrology filed counter affidavit. The 2^nd respondent admitted that the petitioner had licence for the period up to 31.12.2018. On 15.12.2018, the petitioner submitted an application for renewal of licence based on a rent agreement dated 03.12.2018. On 09.01.2018, one Aboobacker Kunju made a complaint against the petitioner stating that the petitioner run a workshop in the complainant’s building on the basis of a false rent agreement. The said Aboobacker Kunju produced a copy of petition filed by petitioner’s wife before the Police which showed that the petitioner is running the workshop at Thittakkudi, which is not a licenced premises. A surprise inspection was conducted and it was noticed that the petitioner has no Trade Licence

WP(C) No.24112/2021

: 6 :

from Local body.

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for the respondents.

¶38

The licence already issued to the petitioner stands cancelled as per Ext.P9 order of the 2^nd respondent. Based on such cancellation, renewal of licence has been declined by the authorities. The cancellation of licence already granted is based on a complaint filed by the petitioner’s former landlord, who alleged that the rent deed produced by the petitioner is false. The appellate authority has upheld Ext.P9 order as per Ext.P12. The legality of Exts.P9 and P12 is challenged by the petitioner. In Exts.P9 and P12, the allegation is that the petitioner has been changing the place of business unauthorisedly and without proper Trade Licence from local body.

¶39

Examining the aforementioned reasons for cancellation of licence, the following facts emerge. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner is running the meter repairing business since the year 2003. In the year 2003, the licence

¶40

WP(C) No.24112/2021

¶41

: 7 :

¶42

was issued in the address TC 17/627, Kannettumukku, Jagathi. According to the respondents, in 2013, the petitioner shifted his business to TC 49/982(2), Thittakkudi, Manacaudu based on order of amendment dated 20.05.2013. Therefore, the respondents cannot be heard to contend that the functioning of workshop at TC 49/982(2) is illegal.

¶43

On 16.12.2016, the petitioner applied for change of premises to TC 43/1544, Ganganagar, Manacaudu on the basis of a rent agreement dated 03.12.2016. This change was accepted and repair licence was renewed up to 02.06.2017 and again up to 31.12.2017. The licence was further extended up to 31.12.2018. Thereafter, the petitioner applied for further renewal of licence to a new location at TC 71/3641(2), Yamuna Nagar, Chalai. This renewal was not granted, presumably based on a complaint filed by a former landlord of the petitioner.

¶44

The former landlord one Aboobacker Kunju filed a complaint before the 2^nd respondent on 09.01.2018 alleging that the petitioner has produced a false rent agreement for a

¶45

WP(C) No.24112/2021

¶46

: 8 :

¶47

period of 11 months from April, 2016 for the shop TC 41/982(2) at Thittakkudi. The landlord also produced a copy

¶48

of complaint filed by Smt. Dhanya S.R., wherein it is stated that the repair work was being conducted at Thittakudi, Therakath. No licence is granted to conduct workshop at Thittakudi, Therakath, it is alleged against the petitioner.

¶49

It is the case of the petitioner that during 2016, a dispute arose between the petitioner and the landlord. The petitioner filed OS No.1780/2016 in the 1^st Additional Munsiff’s Court, Thiruvananthapuram and the landlord filed RCP No.100/2016 to evict the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner shifted his premises to TC 43/1544, Ganganagar, Manacaudu. The licence was again renewed by the respondents in this premises also.

¶50

The argument of the respondents is that since the landlord has complained that the Rent agreement produced by the petitioner is false, the licence issued in respect of that premises is illegally obtained one. It has to be noted that the petitioner was not a trespasser into the shop of the

¶51

WP(C) No.24112/2021

¶52

: 9 :

¶53

complainant-landlord. The RCP filed by the landlord against the petitioner would only indicate that the landlord has admitted landlord-tenant relationship with the petitioner. It is also not in dispute that there were civil and rent control litigations between the landlord and the petitioner. In December, 2016, the petitioner shifted from that premises to another. The complaint of the landlord against the petitioner was filed only on 09.01.2018.

¶54

When admittedly the petitioner and his landlord were at loggerheads and involved in litigations, the respondents ought not have acted on a highly belated complaint filed by the landlord and that too after the expiry of the licence period in that premises. The copy of the petition allegedly submitted by Smt. Dhanya before the Police, produced by the landlord, is also a document unsafe to rely on and cannot be put against the petitioner, for the purpose of cancellation of licence.

¶55

The 2^nd respondent in Page 2 of Ext.P9 order has stated that the Assistant Controller has confirmed that it is

¶56

WP(C) No.24112/2021

¶57

: 10 :

¶58

without any licence for the shop that the repair work of Fare Meters is being carried out at Shop No.TC 41/982(2), Thittakkudi. But, in Page No.4 of Ext.P9 order, the 2^nd respondent has stated that the Unit was shifted to Thittakkudi based on order of amendment dated 20.05.2013. Therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner was conducting the workshop at Thittakudi without licence.

¶59

Another reason extended by the respondents for cancellation of licence is that the petitioner had no trade licence issued by the local body and it is only on 13.12.2018 that he obtained trade licence. Though the trade licence was issued on 13.12.2018, it was for the period from 01.04.2018. The 2^nd respondent would contend that a trade licence cannot be issued by a local body retrospectively. This Court is of the view that as long as no one has successfully challenged the trade licence issued by the local body to the petitioner with effect from 01.04.2018 in accordance with law, the 2^nd respondent cannot ignore the said licence nor can he sit in appeal over the Trade Licence issued by a competent

¶60

WP(C) No.24112/2021

¶61

: 11 :

¶62

authority. The said reasoning of the 2^nd respondent is also unacceptable.

¶63

The further reasons extended by the respondents for cancellation of licence are that the petitioner was running the repair workshop along with another person having dealership licence in the same premises and the petitioner has issued bills to his customers in which licence number of repair licence and dealership licence is printed. It is not brought to the notice of this Court as to how the two instances violate statutory rules or conditions of licence issued to the petitioner. The appellate authority in Ext.P11 has mechanically accepted the findings and conclusions of the 2^nd respondent.

¶64

For all the above reasons, the petitioner is entitled to succeed. The writ petition is therefore allowed. Exts.P9 and P12 are set aside. The 2^nd respondent is directed to take a decision on Ext.P5 application submitted by the petitioner without regard to Exts.P9 and P12 orders.

¶65

Sd/- N. NAGARESH, JUDGE

aks/03.01.2022

WP(C) No.24112/2021

: 12 :

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 24112/2021

¶70

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶71

Exhibit P1	TRUE COPY OF RENTAL AGREEMENT DATED 03.12.2016 AS BETWEEN PETITIONER AND THE LANDLORDS.
Exhibit P2	TRUE COPY OF RENEWED LICENCE DATED 02.06.2017 WITH CHANGE IN NAME OF THE WORKSHOP AS CL METER WORKS.
Exhibit P3	TRUE COPY OF SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 03.12.2018 BY 2ND RESPONDENT TO PETITIONER.
Exhibit P4	TRUE COPY OF RENTAL AGREEMENT DATED 03.12.2018 CONCERNING TC NO.71/364-1-2.
Exhibit P5	TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 15.12.2018 SEEKING CHANGE OF NAME OF CONCERN, ADDRESS OF CONCERN AND RENEWAL OF LICENCE BY PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P6	TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT OF FEE FOR AMENDMENT OF NAME AND ADDRESS IN THE LICENCE DATED 15.12.2018 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P7	TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT OF FEE FOR RENEWAL OF LICENCE DATED 15.12.2018 ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P8	TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 07.12.2018 FOR RENEWAL OF TRADE LICENCE ISSUED BY CORPORATION OF THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
Exhibit P9	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 28.06.2019 CANCELLING THE LICENCE OF PETITIONER BY 2ND RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P10	TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 29.01.2020 IN WPC NO.19642/2019.
Exhibit P11	TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL WHICH IS NIL DATED AS AGAINST EXHIBIT P9 BY PETITIONER BEFORE THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF KERALA.

¶72

WP(C) No.24112/2021

¶73

: 13 :

¶74

Exhibit P12 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 23.09.2021 BY 1ST RESPONDENT DECLINING TO INTERFERE WITH EXHIBIT P9. Exhibit P13 DISCHARGE SUMMARY OF PETITIONER DATED 13.10.2021 FROM KIMS HOSPITAL.

¶75

RESPONDENT EXHIBITS

¶76

R2(a) COPY OF COMPLAINT DT 9.1.2018. R2(b) COPY OF ONLINE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT. R2(c) COPY OF TRADE LICENCE DT 1.4.2018.

Sajikumar.S.L., v. Additional Chief Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sajikumar.S.L., v. Additional Chief Secretary

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

Muthu Vs the State of Kerala

Mariamma John Philip Vs Biju Prabhakar, IAS

Reynold Prince. M (Minor) Vs State of Kerala

Moncy Daniel Vs the Alappuzha Municipality

Biju Augustine Vs Kerala Water Authority

Grace Cherian, Vs State of Kerala