IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN TUESDAY, THE 29TH JUNE 2010 / 8TH ASHADHA 1932 SA.No. 65 of 1998(G) -------------------- AS.342/1992 of ADDL.DISTRICT COURT, THRISSUR OS.773/1990 of III ADDL. M.C.,THRISSUR .................... APPELLANT/APPELLANT/PLAINTIFF(S): ---------------------------------------- K.K.DINESAN, S/O.KRISHNANKUTTY, KOOTTALA HOUSE, DOOR NO.9/455, KANNAMKULANGARA DESOM, CHIYYARAM VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU SRI.T.A.UNNIKRISHNAN RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/DEFENDANT(S): ------------------------------------------------- THRISSUR MUNICIPALITY, M.O.ROAD, THRISSUR REPRESENTED BY MUNICIPAL COMMISSIONER, MUNICIPAL OFFICE, THRISSUR. BY ADV.SRI.K.B.MOHANDAS SRI.LELLULAL T.G.THUNDATHIL SRI.K.A.SREEJITH THIS SECOND APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON C.M.P.NO.129 OF 1998 IN S.A.NO.65 OF 1998 //DISMISSED// 29.06.2010. SD/- S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE. /TRUE COPY/ S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------------------- S.A.No.65 OF 1998 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 29th day of June, 2010 JUDGMENT 1.The plaintiff in a suit for injunction is the appellant. His suit, after trial, was dismissed by the learned Munsiff, Thrissur holding that he is not having any legal right to get the injunction applied for. Challenge against the dismissal of the suit by way of an appeal by the plaintiff was turned down by the first appellate court but with a limited relief on the basis of the concession made by the respondent in the course of hearing of the appeal. However, the dismissal of the suit for injunction by the trial Judge was confirmed by the first appellate court as well. Aggrieved by the concurrent decisions rendered by the two inferior courts, the plaintiff has preferred this appeal. SA.65/98. 2 2.The plaintiff is a vegetable seller in Sakthan Thamburan Market in Thrissur. It is his case that after obtaining licence from the defendant, the local authority, he has put up a shed in the market for carrying out his business in vegetables. Alleging threat from the defendant of removing his shed, he filed the above suit seeking a decree of perpetual prohibitory injunction. The defendant, resisting the suit, contended that the plaintiff had been issued a licence only to carry out business as a platform vendor and no permission was accorded for putting up a shed and carrying out business in such a shed. After obtaining an interim order of injunction from the court, the plaintiff had put up the shed, according to the defendant. 3.On the materials produced by both sides, learned Munsiff came to the conclusion that the plaintiff had not established his case that he had been issued a licence to carry out business in a shed in the market. The materials produced by him indicated that he had a licence to carry out business in a shed but it remained not renewed, and that no supporting SA.65/98. 3 evidence was there to show that such licence related to the present shed in his occupation in the market. From the other materials produced by him, it was found that he has licence only as a platform vendor and that such licence has not been renewed since the institution of the suit. Since his claim is only on the basis of a licence from the defendant local authority, learned Munsiff held that it is open to the local authority to refuse renewal of that licence and even deny such licence to him. So long as the local authority has not granted licence to the plaintiff to conduct business in the shed described in the plaint property, it was held that the plaintiff cannot claim any legal right to seek an injunction to restrain the defendant from demolishing that shed. In that view of the matter, the court below negatived the case of the plaintiff and dismissed the suit. The first appellate court, after re- appreciating the evidence, concurred with the view formed by the court below that in the absence of any licence to carry on business in the shed the plaintiff has no legal right to seek any injunction. It was also noticed that there was no material to SA.65/98. 4 substantiate the case of the plaintiff that he had been granted a licence to conduct business in the shed in the market. However, taking note that he had been issued a licence to carry on business as a platform vendor and also the concession made by the counsel for the respondent that the local authority has no objection in renewing the licence to enable him to do business as a platform vendor subject to payment of the arrears of licence fee due from him, the first appellate court granted a limited relief to the plaintiff that he can carry on business of vegetables as a platform vendor provided he pays the arrears of licence fee due from him within two months from the date of the judgment and obtains a licence from the municipality to do such business. Not being satisfied with the limited relief so granted, the plaintiff has come up with this appeal for grant of a decree as applied for. 4.Having regard to the submissions with reference to the pleadings of the case, I find the finding entered by both the courts below that the plaintiff has not made out a legal right to SA.65/98. 5 claim a decree for injunction against a local authority to restrain it from demolishing the shed, which is stated to be situate in a market, does not call for any interference. The plaintiff evidently has not produced any material to substantiate his case that he has obtained a licence from the local authority to operate business in the plaint schedule shed situate in the market. True he has produced some materials to show that he previously operated business in a shed. But its connection with the shed situate in the market has not been established. Further more, the right claimed by the plaintiff is only as a licensee under the defendant. In case of any refusal by the local authority to renew the licence, adequate avenues are open to the plaintiff to challenge such orders of refusal before the competent authority and also even before the tribunal having jurisdiction to decide such disputes. Unless the plaintiff makes out a case establishing his legal right to have a decree of injunction, a civil court cannot grant such a relief. At the time of filing of the suit, the licence obtained by the plaintiff as a platform vendor remained not renewed. Such SA.65/98. 6 being the position, the declining of the relief of injunction by the courts below in the given facts of the case is proper, valid and correct. No interference with that decision is called for. However, I make it clear that the limited relief granted to the plaintiff by the first appellate court will remain undisturbed irrespective of the confirmation of the judgments of the courts below dismissing the suit. Subject to the above, the appeal is dismissed without any order as to costs. Sd/- S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, Judge. kkb.30/06.