Disposed

K.T. Siraj, v. Kozhikode Corporation

Kerala HC14 Mar 2025WP(C)/9944/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged a Corporation notice demanding a trade licence for his enterprise, claiming exemption under an MSME acknowledgment certificate. The Corporation stated it was unaware of the certificate and would not pursue the notice. The writ petition was closed, with liberty to inspect premises for statutory compliance.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition closed; Ext.P2 notice not pursued by the Corporation; liberty reserved to inspect premises per law.

K.T. Siraj, Vs Kozhikode Corporation — Municipal and Town Planning | Kerala HC (2025)

¶1

2025:KER:26587

¶2

WP(C) No.9944 OF 2025

¶3

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.

¶7

FRIDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 23RD PHALGUNA, 1946

¶8

WP(C) NO. 9944 OF 2025

¶9

PETITIONER/S:

¶10

K.T. SIRAJ,
AGED 50 YEARS
S/O. MOIDEEN, KANAKOVIL THAZHAM, KARAPARAMBU,
KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673010

¶11

BY ADVS.
ARUN KRISHNA DHAN
ARJUN SREEDHAR
T.K.SANDEEP
ALEX ABRAHAM
HARIKRISHNAN P.B.
AMJITH C.M.
SREELAKSHMI SHIBU

¶12

RESPONDENT/S:

¶13

1 KOZHIKODE CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, KOZHIKODE BEACH P.O., KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673032

¶14

2HEALTH OFFICER,
KOZHIKODE CORPORATION, KOZHIKODE BEACH P.O., KOZHIKODE,
PIN - 673010

¶15

OTHER PRESENT:

¶16

Shri.V.Krishna Menon, SC

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
14.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

2025:KER:26587

¶19

WP(C) No.9944 OF 2025

¶20

¶21

J U D G M E N T

¶22

This writ petition is f i led by the petitioner challenging Ext.P2 notice issued by the Corporation by which the petitioner was required to obtain licence for the establishment run by him. The specif i c case is that, the petitioner had obtained Ext.P1 acknowledgment certif i cate under the provisions of Kerala Micro Small, and Medium Enterprises Facilitation Rules 2020 to set up the enterprise and he is exempted from the licence from the Municipality.

¶23

2. Today, when the matter came up for consideration, the learned Standing Counsel for the Municipality submitted that, at the time of issuance of Ext.P2 notice, the Municipality was not aware of the Ext.P1 acknowledgment certif i cate and therefore, they do not intend to pursue Ext.P2 .

¶24

In such circumstances, this writ petition is closed. However, it is clarif i ed that, this will not preclude the Municipality from conducting necessary inspection in the premises of the petitioner for the purpose of ensuring the compliance of the statutory requirements, as permitted by law.

¶25

Sd/-

¶26

ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A. JUDGE

¶27

SM/27.03

¶28

2025:KER:26587

¶29

WP(C) No.9944 OF 2025

¶30

¶31

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 9944/2025

¶32

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶33

`EXHIBIT-P1`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE` `BEARING NO. KLMSME` `2025`	`ACKNOWLEDGMENT CERTIFICATE` `-352/2025 ISSUED ON 06-01-`
`EXHIBIT-P2`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE` `14-01-2025 ISSUED`	`NOTICE NO.02/C4/2025 DATED` `TO THE PETITIONER`
`EXHIBIT-P3`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE` `ALONG WITH POSTAL` `PETITIONER`	`REPLY DATED 20-01-2025` `RECEIPT SUBMITTED BY THE`
`EXHIBIT-P4`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE` `MEDIUM ENTERPRISES`	`KERALA MICRO SMALL AND` `FACILITATION ACT 2019`
`EXHIBIT-P5`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE` `MEDIUM ENTERPRISES`	`KERALA MICRO SMALL AND` `FACILITATION RULES. 2020`

¶34

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:NIL

¶35

TRUE COPY

¶36

P.A.TO JUDGE

K.T. Siraj, v. Kozhikode Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.T. Siraj, v. Kozhikode 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

Chandran, Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer

Rajamma.a.S., Vs the Mulavukad Grama Panchayath

Rosamma Agustine Alias Alice, Vs the Chairman

S Mani Nair, Vs State of Kerala

Sajeesh N.S., Vs the Secretary, Thiruvilwamala Grama Panchayat

Binith M.R., Vs the Secretary