IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE MONDAY, THE 7TH APRIL 2008 / 18TH CHAITHRA 1930 WP(C).No. 5080 of 2008(D) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ K.K.SETHUMADHAVAN NAIR, (SERVICE PENSIONER), AGED 72 YEARS, S/O.K.MADHAVAN NAIR, `SETHU SADAN', GOVINDAPURAM P.O., KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.NIRMAL. SACHEENDRAN RESPONDENTS: ------------- CORPORATION OF CALICUT, (REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY), CORPORATION OFFICE COMPLEX, BEACH ROAD, CALICUT. BY SRI P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/04/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 5080 of 2008(D) APPENDIX EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE PERMIT ISSUED FOR CONSTRUCTING THE SHOP BUILDING DATED 31/05/1996. EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT ISSUED BY TOWN PLANNER DATED 16/02/1996. EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE OMBUDSMAN DATED 30/05/2005 EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 11/11/2005 EXT.P5 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER SHOWING COMPLIANCE DATED 22/12/2005 TOGETHER WITH acknowledgment DATED 23/12/2005. EXT.P6 ADALATH NOTICE DATED 24/11/2006 EXT.P7 TRUE COPY OF LETTER ISSUED BY THE LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT TO THEPETITIONER DATED 14/03/2007 EXT.P8 TRUE COPY OF NOTICE OF RESPONDENT'S OFFICE TO THE PETITIONER DATED 20/07/2007 EXT.P9 TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT FILED BY PETITIONER'S WIFE A.V.VEDAVATHI AMMA DATED 30/03/2008. \\TRUE COPY// PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, J. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ W.P.(C).No.5080/2008-D ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Dated this the 7th day of April, 2008 J U D G M E N T The grievance voiced by the petitioner, who is said to be a senior citizen and service pensioner is that respondent, Kozhikode Corporation, is not issuing him the work permit (trade licence) for the commencement of business in a shop room which has been constructed by him and completed in all respects as early as in the year 2000. He approached the hon'ble Ombudsman for the Local Self Government Department and Ext.P3 order was passed in his favour. In Ext.P3, the Corporation was directed to issue trade licence to the petitioner within one month from the date of receiving a report regarding completion of the construction in all respects including the bathroom and the water closet. It was also directed that an opportunity for changing the leach-pit of the latrine and the bathroom should also be given to the petitioner. Pursuant to Ext.P3, the Corporation issued Ext.P4 notice to the petitioner directing him to complete the construction of the building as WP(C) No.5080/2008-D -:2:- directed by the Ombudsman and to submit a revised plan. Accordingly, the petitioner completed the construction and submitted revised plan. Revised plan Ext.P5(1) along with acknowledgment Ext.P5(2) will show that the Corporation has acknowledged the revised plan and completion report submitted by the petitioner. Ext.P5(2) is dated 23/12/2005. Nevertheless on 24/11/2006 the Corporation issued Ext.P6 communication to the petitioner as if the petitioner has not complied with the directions in Ext.P4. The petitioner approached the Government. The Government informed the petitioner after obtaining report from the Corporation that the Corporation will regularise constructions made and issue permit (trade licence) upon receiving an application for regularisation and revised plan from the petitioner. Pursuant to that the Corporation issued Ext.P8 communication to the petitioner. Interestingly in Ext.P8, the stand taken by the Corporation is that since the land upon which the construction was made stands in the name of Smt.A.V.Vedavathi Amma, wife of the petitioner the application for regularisation and revised plan should be submitted in the name of Smt.A.V.Vedavathi Amma. According to the petitioner, WP(C) No.5080/2008-D -:3:- inspite of all these, alleges that the Corporation is unnecessarily driving him from post to pillar and hence on various grounds the petitioner has filed the writ petition seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondent to issue work permit for starting business in the shop room constructed by him. Corporation has not filed any counter affidavit. 2. I have heard Sri.Nirmal Sacheendran counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation Sri.P.V.Kunhikrishnan. While Mr.Sacheendran would address on the basis of the various grounds raised in the writ petition drawing my attention to the documents placed on record and particularly, Ext.P9 affidavit submitted by Smt.A.V.Vedavathi Amma, Sri.Kunhikrishnan would submit that Smt.A.V.Vedavathi Amma on 28/11/2005 submitted a representation before the Corporation through which she has withdrawn the application submitted by her in respect of the construction. The copy of the above application dated 28/11/2005 submitted by Smt.A.V.Vedavathi Amma was placed before me by Sri.Sacheendran. It is not difficult to discern from that application itself that the same was submitted by WP(C) No.5080/2008-D -:4:- Smt.A.V.Vedavathi Amma in distress so as to ensure that her husband Sri.Sethumadhavan Nair obtains trade licence from the Corporation at the earliest. I am of the view that in view of the compliance already made by the petitioner to the directions issued to the Ombudsman and also in view of Ext.P9 affidavit submitted by Smt.A.V.Vedavathi Amma which will show that there is absolutely no bad blood between husband and wife, the Corporation is not justified in delaying issuance of trade licence to the petitioner any further. Allowing the writ petition, I am issuing the following orders:- 3. The respondent Corporation is directed to take into account the revised plan and completion report which were received by the Corporation as per Ext.P5(2) acknowledgment as well as Ext.P9 affidavit submitted by Smt.A.V.Vedavathi Amma and pass formal orders issuing work permit (trade licence) to the petitioner for starting business in the shop room in question within two weeks of receiving copy of this judgment. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, Judge ms