IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR MONDAY, THE 1ST MARCH 2010 / 10TH PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 6117 of 2010(L) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED, P.B.NO.1601, ERNAKULAM NORTH P.O, ERNAKULAM-682 018, REPRESENTED BY ITS SENIOR REGIONAL MANAGER MR.SHUVENDU GUPTA. BY ADV. MR.E.K.NANDAKUMAR, MR.A.K.JAYASANKAR NAMBIAR, MR.K.JOHN MATHAI, MR.P.BENNY THOMAS, MR.P.GOPINATH, MR.V.J.ANAND. RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 033. 2. HEALTH OFFICER, CORPORATION OF THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, CORPORATION OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. MR.N. NANDAKUMARA MENON. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/03/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs. T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P.(C). No.6117/2010-L ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated this the 1st day of March, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner herein is a Public Sector Undertaking. It is aggrieved by the proceedings issued by the Secretary of the Thiruvananthapuram Corporation produced as Ext.P1 herein. The matter relates to a Petroleum outlet which has been in existence since 1963 and the same was established after obtaining all requisite sanctions including licence under the Kerala Municipalities Act and Rules therein. The said outlet was being operated by a dealer till the year 2004. It was later taken over by the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner failed to apply for renewal of trade licence issued under Section 447 of the Act in the name of the petitioner. Even though the petitioner, after noticing the said fact applied for renewal, by Ext.P1, a notice was issued to initiate action for violation of Section 447 of the Act for conducting the retail outlet without requisite licence. It is in these circumstances, the petitioner has filed this writ petition. 2. Ext.P2 is the copy of the application for licence submitted to the first respondent which, going by Ext.P3, has already been received by them also. W.P.(C). No.6117/2010 -:2:- 3. The learned Senior Counsel for the Corporation submitted that the petitioner has got a remedy to challenge it before the Tribunal. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that Ext.P2 may be directed to be considered within a time frame and till then, Ext.P1 may not be implemented. 5. There will be a direction to the Secretary of the Corporation to consider Ext.P2 and pass appropriate orders within a period of one month. Till then status quo as on today will be maintained and any coercive action will be kept in abeyance. The writ petition is disposed of as above. No costs. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) ms