IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 14TH JULY 2008 / 23RD ASHADHA 1930 W.P(C).No. 21056 of 2008(F) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------- 1. K.G.UNNIKRISHNAN, S/O.LATE K.A.GOPALAN, KAITHAKKAT HOUSE, SANKARAYYA ROAD, THRISSUR - 4. 2. K.S.BEENA, D/O.SEKHARAN, KALAVAMPARA HOUSE, PARUR P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. NOW RESIDING AT KAITHAKKAT HOUSE, SANKARAYYA ROAD, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.C.CHANDRASEKHARAN RESPONDENTS: ------------------ 1. THRISSUR CORPORATION REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, CORPORATION OFFICE, THRISSUR. 2. MRS.LEENA BENNY, W/O.C.P.BENNY, IV/234, CHERPUKARAN HOUSE, THRISSUR-6. BY ADV. SRI. K.B. MOHANDAS, SC FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C) No. 21056 OF 2008 F = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 14th day of July 2008 J U D G M E N T Ext. P6 is under challenge. Petitioner submits that in partnership with the 2nd respondent he was running a business for which a licence was granted by the respondent Corporation in the name of the 2nd respondent. Consequent on the 2nd respondent retiring from the partnership the 2nd petitioner applied for change of licence into her name. That application was considered and is now rejected by the Corporation. The decision of the Corporation has been intimated to the petitioner by Ext. P6. It is this order that is under challenge. 2. The main contention that is raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that Ext. P6 order communicating her the decision of the Corporation to transfer the license does not contain any reason. 3. I heard the Standing Counsel who entered appearance on W.P.(C) No. 21056 OF 2008 -2- behalf of the respondent Corporation also. 3. Though the counsel for the respondents made an attempt to sustain Ext. P6 order, still I am not satisfied that the order contains any reason for rejecting the application for transfer of licence. True, it is for the Corporation to decide on the request made by the petitioner for transfer of licence, but then an order in the nature of Ext. P6, should be supported by reasons and in the absence of which I cannot sustain Ext. P6. Therefore, Ext. P6 will stand quashed and the writ petition is disposed of directing that the Corporation shall consider the application for transfer of licence afresh and pass appropriate orders thereon and communicate the same to the petitioners. Needless to say that such order should contain reasons in support of the decision taken by the respondent Corporation. Orders shall be passed as above, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within 4 weeks of production of a copy of this judgment. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE jan/-