IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR.P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR THURSDAY, THE 11TH MARCH 2010 / 20TH PHALGUNA 1931 WA.No. 330 of 2010() -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.8271/2009 Dated 08/01/2010 .................... APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS ------------------------- 1. K.G.UNNIKRISHNAN, S/O.LATE K.A.GOPALAN, KAITHAKKAT HOUSE, SANKARAYYA ROAD, THRISSUR-4. 2. K.S.BEENA, D/O.SEKHARAN, KAVALAMPARA HOUSE, PARUR P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, NOW RESIDING AT KAITHAKKAT HOUSE, SANKARAYYA ROAD, THRISSUR-4. BY ADV. SRI.C.CHANDRASEKHARAN RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THRISSUR CORPORATION, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, CORPORATION OFFICE, THRISSUR. 2. MRS.LEENA BENNY, W/O.C.P.BENNY, IV/234, CHERPUKARAN HOUSE, THRISSUR-6. ADV. SRI.K.B.MOHANDAS, SC, FOR R1 THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/03/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMAN, AG. C.J. & C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. .................................................................... Writ Appeal No.330 of 2010 .................................................................... Dated this the 11th day of March, 2010. JUDGMENT Raman, Ag. C.J. As per Ext.P9 judgment in W.P.(C) No.29679/2008 filed by the appellants, this court after considering the rival submission made by the parties found that there is no provision anywhere in the Kerala Municipality Act restricting transfer of licence in favour of legal heirs of the deceased licensee only. On the other hand, the proviso to Section 215(4) empowers the Corporation to transfer licence in the name of any other person. Second appellant wanted transfer of the licence in her name being a partner in the firm. Therefore, in Ext.P9 judgment this court set aside the order rejecting her claim for transfer as per Ext.P8 and directed the Municipality to consider the application for transfer of licence filed by the second writ petitioner in terms of the proviso to Section 215(4) of the Kerala Municipality Act and in accordance with the observations made in that judgment. 2. The Municipality accordingly passed Ext.P10 order by which W.A. 330/2010 2 the application for transfer of licence by the second petitioner was allowed. However, the licence fee was enhanced. Hence the W.P.(C) No.8271/2009 was filed by the appellants herein inter alia contending that being a partner second appellant is entitled to pay the same licence fee and the Municipality is not empowered to enhance the licence fee. But the learned Single Judge did not agree with the said contention. According to him, since in Ext.P9 judgment the application was directed to be considered in terms of proviso to Section 215(4) and what involves is a transfer of licence, the conditions imposed for grant of transfer by enhancing the fee is not liable to be interfered with and hence the Writ Petition was dismissed. Hence this appeal. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants Sri.C.Chandrasekharan reiterated his submissions as noticed above. 4. As per the proviso to Section 215(4) of the Kerala Municipality Act, the Municipality may at the isntance of a licencee, tranfer the licence to any other person subject to such terms and conditions as it may deem fit to impose and upon such transfer, it shall be deemed to be a fresh licence for all purposes. Since the direction in Ext.P9 judgment is to consider the application in terms of proviso to Section 215(4), the deeming provision contained in the Section W.A. 330/2010 3 squarely applies and it is deemed to be a fresh licence and further the proviso also authorises the Municipality to impose such terms and conditions as it may deem fit. Now that the Municipality has enhanced licence fee, that too based on a resolution passed on 27.1.2009, which is a general resolution that licence fee has to be increased by 200% except in the case of transfer of licence in favour of legal heirs. If that be so, we do not find any reason to interfere with the matter. However, in the matter of reduction of licence fee, it is still open to the appellants to make any representation before the the Municipality for reduction of licence fee, if so advised, and the dismissal of the Writ Petition and the Writ Appeal will not stand in the way of their making such representation before the Municipality and the Municipality can consider the same in accordance with law. Subject to the above Writ Appeal is dismissed. P.R.RAMAN Acting Chief Justice C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge pms