Disposed

K.N.Marzook v. Corporation of Kochi

Kerala HC21 Jul 2023WP(C)/7165/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of two writ petitions concerning the renewal of a Trade Licence. After noting interim directions based on a Supreme Court precedent holding landlord consent unnecessary for renewal, the Court directed authorities to conclude proceedings within six weeks after hearing parties, pending the Corporation's consideration of licence renewal eligibility.

What did the court decide?

The petitions disposed of directing Respondents 1 & 2 to conclude Trade Licence proceedings within six weeks after hearing parties; no coercive action against petitioner.

K.N.Marzook Vs Corporation of Kochi — Municipal and Town Planning | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 21^ST DAY OF JULY 2023 / 30TH ASHADHA, 1945

¶5

WP(C) NO. 7165 OF 2020

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

K.N.MARZOOK AGED 62 YEARS, SON OF C.K.KASMI, METRO PLUS (FEATHERLITE SHOWROOM), ADJACENT TO TOWN HALL, ERNAKULAM-682 018.

¶8

BY ADVS. S.VINOD BHAT BASIL MATHEW ANAGHA LAKSHMY RAMAN MINI V.MENON

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 CORPORATION OF KOCHI CORPORATION OFFICE, ERNAKULAM-682 031, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶11

2 THE HEALTH INSPECTOR, CIRCLE 19, CORPORATION OF KOCHI, CORPORATION OFFICER, ERNAKULAM-682 031.

¶12

3 DR. FIROZ P. IQBAL, S/O LATE MUHAMMED IQBAL, DOOR NO 15/16A, B BLOCK, KENT HAIL GARDEN, JAWAHARLAL NEHRU STADIUM LINK ROAD, PALARIVATTOM, KOCHI-682 025.

¶13

BY ADVS. SRI.ARUN ANTONY, STANDING COUNSEL SRI.DINESH R.SHENOY SRI.EBIN MATHEW SRI.P.ROHIT PREMANANDAN SHENOY

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21.07.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

WP(C)Nos.7165 of 2020 & 15474 of 2023

¶16

¶17

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶18

PRESENT

¶19

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH

¶20

FRIDAY, THE 21^ST DAY OF JULY 2023 / 30TH ASHADHA, 1945 WP(C) NO. 15474 OF 2023

¶21

PETITIONER:

¶22

K.N.MARZOOK.,

¶23

AGED 65 YEARS, SON OF C.K.KASMI, METRO PLUS (FEATHERLITE SHOWROOM0, ADJACENT TO TOWN HALL, ERNAKULAM, PIN – 682018.

¶24

BY ADVS. S.VINOD BHAT ANAGHA LAKSHMY RAMAN GREESHMA CHANDRIKA.R

¶25

RESPONDENTS:

¶26

1 CORPORATION OF KOCHI, CORPORATION OFFICE, ERNAKULAM 682031 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶27

2 THE PUBLIC HEALTH OFFICER, COCHIN MUNICIPALITY CORPORATION, CIRCLE 19, CORPORATION OF KOCHI, CORPORATION OFFICE, P.B.NO.1016, ERNAKULAM, PIN – 682011.

¶28

3 DR. FIROZ P. IQBAL., S/O LATE MUHAMMED IQBAL,DOOR NO.15/16A, B BLOCK, KENT HAIL GARDEN, JAWAHARLAL NEHRU STADIUM LINK ROAD, PALARIVATTOM, KOCHI, PIN – 682025.

¶29

WP(C)Nos.7165 of 2020 & 15474 of 2023

¶30

¶31

BY ADVS. K.JANARDHANA SHENOY R.HARISHANKAR DINESH R.SHENOY P.ROHIT PREMANANDAN SHENOY SILESH S. PRABHU SAMBHU NARAYANAN S. JOMOL PIUS MANOJ.R HELAN PAULOSE

¶32

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21.07.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶33

WP(C)Nos.7165 of 2020 & 15474 of 2023

¶34

¶35

J U D G M E N T

¶36

Dated this the 21^st day of July, 2023

¶37

(WP(C)Nos.7165 of 2020 and 15474 of 2023)

¶38

W.P.(C) No.7165 of 2020 has been filed by the petitioner

¶39

seeking the following reliefs:

¶40

i) To call for records leading to Ext.P9 order and this Hon'ble Court upon perusing the records issue a writ of certiorari or such other writ or order quashing Ext.P9.

¶41

ii) To issue a writ of mandamus or such other writ directing the 1^st respondent or its officer to issue a Trade Licence as sought for by Ext.P8 application.

¶42

iii) Grant such other order or direction, as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances.

¶43

W.P.(C) No.15474 of 2023 has been filed by the very

¶44

same writ petitioner seeking the following reliefs:

¶45

¶46

WP(C)Nos.7165 of 2020 & 15474 of 2023

¶47

i) To call for records leading to Exts.P10 and P14 orders/notices and this Hon'ble Court upon perusing the records and hearing the parties issue a writ of certiorari or such other writ or order quashing Exts.P10 and P14.

¶48

ii) To issue a writ of mandamus or such other writ directing the 1^st and 2^nd respondents or its officer to renew the Trade Licence for the period 2022-2023 and 2023-2024.

¶49

iii) To dispense with the filing of English translation of vernacular documents.

¶50

iv) Grant such other order or direction, as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances.

¶51

I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the

¶52

learned Standing Counsel representing the Corporation and the learned Counsel appearing for the contesting respondent.

¶53

The issue involved in the writ petitions revolves around

¶54

the eligibility of the petitioner to get his Trade Licence renewed. The contesting 3^rd respondent in W.P.(C) No.7165 of 2020 would

¶55

urge that there was no Trade Licence at all issued in favour of the

¶56

petitioner. Therefore, there is no question of renewal of licence.

¶57

Be that as it may, when W.P.(C) No.15474 of 2023

¶58

came up for hearing, this Court passed an interim order on

¶59

WP(C)Nos.7165 of 2020 & 15474 of 2023

¶60

¶61

09.05.2023 which reads as follows:

¶62

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Corporation and Adv.Dinesh R. Shenoy appearing for the 3^rd respondent.

¶63

The subject matter of this writ petition is nonrenewal of licence at the instance of the petitioner in a rental building since the landlord objects the same.

¶64

The decision reported in Sudhakaran v. Corp. of Trivandrum and Ors. (AIR 2016 SC 3180), the Apex Court categorically held that the consent of the landlord is not necessary to renew the licence.

¶65

In view of the above legal position, there shall be a direction to respondents 1 and 2 to consider the request for renewal of licence at the instance of the petitioner, within a period of three weeks. It is specifically ordered that the 3^rd respondent shall also be heard before taking a decision on the basis of the legal position, in accordance with law.

¶66

Post after three weeks to appraise the decision taken by the Municipality and for further steps.

¶67

Till then, coercive actions shall not be taken against the petitioner because of absence of licence.

¶68

After hearing the parties and going through the pleadings, it is evident that primarily a decision in this regard shall

¶69

be taken by the Corporation Authorities. Standing Counsel for the

¶70

Corporation would submit that a decision as directed by this Court

¶71

as per interim order dated 09.05.2023 can be taken within a

¶72

WP(C)Nos.7165 of 2020 & 15474 of 2023

¶73

period of one month, as the hearing in respect of the issue is already over.

¶74

Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the decision reported in Sudhakaran v. Corporation of Trivandrum

¶75

and others [AIR 2016 SC 3180] would squarely apply in the petitioner's case. However, the Counsel for the contesting 3^rd respondent would submit that since the decision contemplates the renewal of a Trade Licence and the petitioner does not have any Trade Licence at all, this decision will not apply. I am of the view that the existence or otherwise of the Trade Licence in favour of the petitioner and the question of applicability of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sudhakaran (supra) are matters to be considered by the Corporation Authorities first.

¶76

In view of the above and taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition is disposed of directing respondents 1 and 2 to conclude the proceedings on the

¶77

¶78

¶79

Trade Licence after giving an opportunity of hearing to the parties within a period of six weeks, as directed by this Court in the

¶80

interim order dated 09.05.2023. No coercive action shall be taken

¶81

against the petitioner till a decision is taken as directed above.

Sd/-

N. NAGARESH

JUDGE

ams

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 7165/2020

¶89

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶90

EXHIBIT P1 COPY OF THE PETITION RCP 182/2018 OF THE RENT CONTROL COURT, ERNAKULAM EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF THE OBJECTION IN RCP 182/2018 OF RENT CONTROL COURT, ERNAKULAM EXHIBIT P3 COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 19.2.2013 ISSUED BY 1ST RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P4 COPY OF LETTER DATED 19.2.2013 SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P5 COPY OF THE CHEQUE NO 185219 DATED 19.2.,2013 FOR RS 2,500/- DRAWN ON STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE. EXHIBIT P6 COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 13.12.2012 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT

¶91

EXHIBIT P7 COPY OF THE NOTICE NO 06/HIC-19/2019-20 DATED 13.12.2019 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT

¶92

EXHIBIT P8 COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 3.1.2020 SENT BY THE PETITIONER ALONG WITH APPLICATION AND RECEIPT

¶93

EXHIBIT P9 COPY OF THE NOTICE NO ISO/MOH15/00228/2020 DATED 24.2.2020 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT RESPONDENT EXHIBITS Exhibit R3(A) TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF REGISTERED WILL NO.178/III/1999 ERNAKULAM SRO DATED 2907-1999. Exhibit R3(B) THE AGREEMENT FOR LEASE DATED 15-042007 BETWEEN HAJIRA P IQBAL AND SHRI.

¶94

¶95

¶96

K.N.ABDUL GAFOOR.

¶97

Exhibit R3(C) TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT DATED 13-09-2007 EXECUTED BY HAJIRA IQBAL AND SHRI. ABDUL GAFOOR. Exhibit R3(D) TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF AGREEMENT FOR LEASE DATED 1-12-2013 BETWEEN DR. FIROZ P. IQBAL AND SHRI. K.N.ABDUL GAFOOR. Exhibit R3(E) TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF AGREEMENT DATED 0406-2019 EXECUTED BETWEEN THE 3RD RESPONDENT AND THE ORIGINAL TENANT, SHRI. K.N.ABDUL GAFOOR. Exhibit R3(f) TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF REPLY DATED 24/3/2023 ISSUED UNDER THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT BY THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER, CORPORATION OF COCHIN. Exhibit R3(g) TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF REPLY LETTER DATED 17/4/2023 ISSUED TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT UNDER THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT. Exhibit R3(h) TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF NOTICE DATED 24/4/2023 ISSUED BY THE PUBLIC HEALTH OFFICER, CORPORATION OF COCHIN. Exhibit R3(i) TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF NOTICE DATED 5/5/2023 ISSUED BY THE CORPORATION OF COCHIN.

¶98

¶99

¶100

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 15474/2023

¶101

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶102

Exhibit P1 COPY OF THE PETITION RCP 182/2018 OF THE RENT CONTROL COURT, ERNAKULAM DATED 2310-2018 Exhibit P2 COPY OF THE OBJECTION IN RCP 182/2018 OF RENT CONTROL COURT, ERNAKULAM DATED 2501-2020 Exhibit P3 COPY OF RECEIPT DATED 19-02-2013 ISSUED BY 1ST RESPONDENT Exhibit P4 COPY OF LETTER DATED 19-02-2013 SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT Exhibit P5 COPY OF THE CHEQUE NO.185219 DATED 19-022013 FOR RS.2,500/-DRAWN ON STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE Exhibit P6 COPY OF RECEIPT DATED 13-12-2012 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT Exhibit P7 COPY OF THE NOTICE NO. ISO/MOH15/ 00228/2020 DATED 24-02-2020 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT Exhibit P8 COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 10-03-2020 IN WP(C) 7165/2020 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA Exhibit P9 COPY OF LICENCE DATED 30-12-2020 ISSUED BY 1ST RESPONDENT Exhibit P10 COPY OF NOTICE NO. MOH/15/228/2020 DATED 24-04-2023 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT Exhibit P11 COPY OF REPLY DATED 03-05-2023 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT Exhibit P12 COPY OF APPLICATION NO.6064 DATED 02-05-

¶103

¶104

¶105

2023 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER

¶106

Exhibit P13 COPY OF APPLICATION NO.6070 DATED 05-052023 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER

¶107

Exhibit P14 COPY OF NOTICE NO. MOH15/228/2020 DATED 5-05-2023 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT

¶108

RESPONDENT EXHIBITS

¶109

Exhibit R3 (a) TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF REGISTERED WILL NO. 178/III/1999 ERNAKULAM SRO DATED 29/07/1999.

¶110

Exhibit R3(b) TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE AGREEMENT FOR LEASE DATED 15/04/2007 BETWEEN HAJIRA P IQBAL AND SHRI. K N ABDUL GAFOOR. Exhibit R3(c) TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT DATED 13/9/2007 EXECUTED BY HAJIRA IQBAL AND SHRI. ABDUL GAFOOR. Exhibit R3(d) TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF AGREEMENT FOR LEASE DATED 1/12/2013 BETWEEN DR. FIROZ P IQBAL AND SHRI. K N ABDUL GAFOOR. Exhibit R3(e) TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF AGREEMENT DATED 04.06.2019 EXECUTED BETWEEN THE 3RD RESPONDENT AND THE ORIGINAL TENANT, SHRI. K N ABDUL GAFOOR.

K.N.Marzook v. Corporation of Kochi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.N.Marzook v. Corporation of Kochi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ragu.K.B Vs Revenue Divisional Officer

M/S.Marath Enterprises and Crushers Pvt. Ltd. Vs State Environment Impact Assessment Authority, Kerala.

Manju Joemon, Vs the Malayattoor – Neeleeswaram Grama Panchayath

Dr. Parvathy.a. Vs Peethambara Kurup

George Pathrose Vs Vishnu Raj. P. IAS

Khadeeja Vs Secretary