IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 29TH MAY 2008 / 8TH JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 15989 of 2008(C) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ VODAFONE ESSAR CELLULAR LIMITED FORMERLY KNOWN AS HUTCHISON ESSAR CELLULAR LTD. XL-5115, ASHIS BUILDING, SHAMUGHAM ROAD, COCHIN - 682 031, REP. BY ITS SENIOR MANAGER LEGAL, RAJESH MELETH VEETIL. BY ADV. SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR RESPONDENTS: ------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, LOCAL ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. SECRETARY, CORPORATION OF THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. HEALTH INSPECTOR, MEDICAL COLLEGE CIRCLE, CORPORATION OF THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. I.V. PRAMOD SRI. P.K. MANOJ KUMAR - SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/05/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S. SIRI JAGAN, J. ------------------------------------ W.P.(C)No.15989 OF 2008 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 29th day of May, 2008 JUDGMENT The petitioner is a cellular phone service provider. They operate a shop in the area under the jurisdiction of the 2 nd respondent for sale of SIM cards of mobile phones and handsets. They are now aggrieved by Ext.P2 order, which is styled as a notice whereby they have been directed to show cause why prosecution proceedings should not be initiated against them for taking a shop without a licence under the Kerala Municipalities Act. 2. The petitioner's contention is that no licence is required in so far as the petitioner's premises are not one notified by the respondents under Section 447(1) of the Act. They would also submit that no rules have been framed by the respondents in that regard. They have filed Ext.P3 objection to Ext.P2 notice also. The petitioner would submit that Ext.P2, issued without affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner on the question as to whether they are liable to take out a licence itself, W.P.(c)No.15989/08 2 is clearly illegal and unsustainable. 3. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 2 nd respondent submits that Ext.P2 is an appealable order. But he could not controvert the averments of the petitioner that before passing Ext.P2, no notice or hearing was granted to the petitioner. Further, Ext.P2 is in a printed form filling up the blank space. I am of opinion that this is not the way the 2 nd respondent should pass orders affecting the civil rights of persons like the petitioner, especially since they contend that they are not liable to take out a licence in respect of which there has not been a decision with opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. In the above circumstances, I dispose of this writ petition with the following directions. Ext.P2 would be treated as a notice directing the petitioner to show cause as to why proceedings under the Municipalities Act should not be initiated against them for conducting a shop without obtaining a licence. The petitioner shall file a detailed reply to the same in addition to Ext.P3, within a period of two weeks from today. The 2 nd respondent shall consider all the contentions of the petitioner, including W.P.(c)No.15989/08 3 the contention that without a notification under 447(1) of the Kerala Municipalities Act, 1994, they are not bound to take out a licence, and pass appropriate orders thereon, as expeditiously as possible. If there is a notification under Section 447(1) of the Act, the 2 nd respondent shall provide the petitioner with a copy of the same also. Till after two weeks of passing a final appealable order as directed above, further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P2 shall be kept in abeyance. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE Acd W.P.(c)No.15989/08 4