IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 27TH MAY 2008 / 6TH JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 15753 of 2004(A) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ C.K.SAVITHRI AMMA, W/O. LATE A.U.MADHAVA PODUVAL, CHUVATTA KALLIDIL HOUSE, NEAR S.S.TEMPLE, P.O. PAYYANNUR, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.V.AMARESAN SRI.V.N.RAMESAN NAMBISAN RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE TAHSILDAR, TALIPARAMBA. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KANNUR. 3. T.K.REKHA, D/O. T.K.PADMINI, THEKKE KURUNTHIL HOUSE, NEAR S.S. TEMPLE, PAYYANNUR, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.SASINDRAN FOR R3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/05/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 15753 of 2004(A) -------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: LAWYER NOTICE DTD. 23.10.2003 ISSUED TO R3. EXT.P2: REPLY NOTICE DTD. 18.11.2003 RECEIVED FROM R3. EXT.P3: REPRESENTATION SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE R1 DTD. 9.2.2004. EXT.P3(a): POSTAL RECEIPT OF R1. EXT.P3(b): POSTAL RECEIPT OF R2. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL. ... // TRUE COPY // P.A TO JUDGE. S.SIRI JAGAN, J = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C).No. 15753 OF 2004 = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 27th day of May, 2008. J U D G M E N T The petitioner is one of the legal heirs of late C.K.Premachandran, who was a stamp vendor holding licence under the SRO, Payyannur. Petitioner is his mother. The licensee died leaving behind his wife and a small child apart from the petitioner as legal heirs. Apparently, subsequent to the death of said C.K.Premachandran, the widow applied for transfer of licence which has been issued in her favour. The petitioner now contends that such grant of licence without obtaining consent from the petitioner and without inviting objections from other legal heirs is illegal and unsustainable. 2. I have considered the contentions of the parties. 3. Admittedly, the licence is transferred in favour of the 3rd respondent who was the widow of the late licensee. The petitioner is the mother who was aged 57 years at the time of filing of this writ petition and must now be 61 years old. Admittedly, the 3rd respondent has a small child, she is in still in W.P.(C).No. 15753 OF 2004 2 the prime of life, whereas the petitioner has entered the twilight of her life. More than the petitioner, it is the widow who is in need of an income. As between the two I am satisfied that the 3rd respondent widow is the better candidate who has been granted the licence. I do not find anything wrong with the action of the 1rd respondent in granting licence to the 3rd respondent. In any event I am not inclined to exercise my discretionary jurisdiction in favour of the petitioner in the peculiar circumstances of the case. Accordingly the writ petition is dismissed. S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE bkn/-