IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 31ST JULY 2009 / 9TH SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 29357 of 2007(T) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- K.S.MURALEEDHARAN, AGED 43 YEARS, HEALTH INSPECTOR, (HEALTH DEPT.), S/O. V.KUTTYKRISHNAN NAIR, PAROTTIL HOUSE, PALLIKKURUPPU P.O., THACHAMPARA VIA, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.P.GOPINATH MENON RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF HEALTH SERVICE (DHS), DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. SMITHA SUKUMAR FOR R THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 31/07/2009, ALONG WITH WPC NOS. 13012 OF 2007 & 36336 OF 2007 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 29357 of 2007(T) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: Ext.P.1 - TRUE COPY OF THE G.O(MS) NO. 266/89/H&FWD DATED 15.12.1989 Ext.P2. TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR./NOTIFICATION NO. 19755/H1/2004/H&FWD DATED 22.9.2004. Ext.P3 - TRUE COPY OF THE DEGREE CERTIFICATES ISSUED TO THE PETITINER BY THE CALICUT UNIVERSITY. Ext.P4 - TRUE COPY OF THE BIO-DATA OF THE PETITIONER DULY ATTESTED BY THE DMO. Ext.P5 - TRUE COPY OF THE FILE NOTINGS IN FILE NO.9755/H & FWD (RELATING TO APPOINTMENT OF MANAGEMENT INSTRUCTOR) AT SERIAL NOS. 116 OF 136. // TRUE COPY // PA TO JUDGE rhs S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================================= W.P.(C).No.29357 of 2006 ================================== Dated this the 7th day of June, 2007 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is aggrieved by the action of the 1st respondent in cancelling the licence for running a Milma booth at the Air Cargo Complex of the Calicut Air Port. The petitioner submits that originally he was permitted to have a Milma booth at the airport, which was later shifted to the Air Cargo Complex. The allegation of the petitioner is that without rehabilitating him, the 1st respondent is going to cancel the licence. 2. The 1st respondent has filed a counter affidavit in which they have categorically asserted that they have no privily of contract with themselves and the petitioner. According to them, licence was issued to the 2nd respondent, which has already expired. They would further submit that they do not intend to have a Milma booth in the Air w.p.c.29357/06 2 Cargo Complex since they have decided to have a full fledged canteen to be run by a society of employees of the Air Cargo Complex. The petitioner does not dispute the fact that he does not have any licence issued by the 1st respondent and that he is only a licensee under the 2nd respondent. That being so, the writ petition at the instance of the petitioner is not maintainable as against the 1st respondent. Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed. sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE