IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 15TH MARCH 2011 / 24TH PHALGUNA 1932 WP(C).No. 6933 of 2010(N) --------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- PRASANTHAN P.V., S/O. KUNHANDY P.V., AGED 48 YEARS, KUTTINILAM PARAMBA, POST KALLAI, PANNIYANKARA AMSOM AND DESOM, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.V.T.MADHAVANUNNI SRI.V.A.SATHEESH RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. THE KOZHIKODE CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, CORPORATION OFFICE, KOZHIKODE BEACH POST, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. * ADDL. R2 IS IMPLEADED 2. PRASAD P.V., S/O. KUNHANDI, AGED 39 YEARS, PRABITHA NIVAS, PUTHEN VEETIL, PANNIYANKARA, KOZHIKODE. * IS IMPLEADED AS ADDL.R2 AS PER ORDER DATED 31/05/2010 IN I.A. NO. 6754/2010. R1 BY ADVS. SRI.K.D.BABU SRI.P.V.SURENDRANATH R2 BY ADV. SRI.M.RAMESH CHANDER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: svs W.P.(C). NO. 6933/2010 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE NOTICE SENT ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER TO THE RESPONDENT DATED 25/02/2010WITH COPIES OF THE ENCLOSURES. P2: COPY OF THE NOTICE SENT ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER TO THE RESPONDENT DATED 06/02/2009. P3: COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT DATED 09/02/2009. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: R2(a):COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN O.S. 335/2006 OF THE ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF-1, KOZHIKODE DATED 30/08/2006. R2(b):COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION TO THE FIRST RESPONDENT DATED 29/07/2004. R2(c):COPY OF THE COMPLAINT BEFORE THE FIRST RESPONDENT DATED 03/11/2008. /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE. svs C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P(C) No. 6933 OF 2010 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 15th day of March, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is conducting an industrial unit by name 'Prasanth Metal Industries' in the building bearing No. 300A in Ward No.23 of the first respondent Corporation. He is conducting the same on the strength of the licence that was issued as early as in the year 1994 and renewed from time to time till 2008-'09. According to the petitioner, he had applied for its renewal for the year 2009-2010 through registered lawyer notice dated 6.2.2009 and the same was received by the first respondent on 9.2.2009. The firest respondent has not granted the licence and also, had not issued any receipt for the licence fee enclosed therewith, it is further submitted. Again, the petitioner has applied for the licence for the year 2010-'11 through Ext.P1 lawyer notice. According to the petitioner, along with the lawyer notice an application for the said purpose, in the prescribed form was also submitted. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as WPC No.6933/2011 2 also the learned Standing Counsel for the additional second respondent. 3. Admittedly, has been running the industry since 1994. On 17.3.2010, while admitting this writ petition, this Court passed an interim order directing the respondents not to initiate any action against the petitioner under section 447(3) on the ground that the petitioner did not possess the D& O licence. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that on the strength of the interim order passed by this Court the petitioner has been running the said industrial unit. Considering the fact that the petitioner has started the industry on the strength of the licence No.X/52 issued in the year 1994-95 and has been conducting the same uninterruptedly, I am of the view that the first respondent cannot refuse to receive an application for renewal. An authority competent to take a decision, in the matter of renewal of a licence is bound to receive an application for renewal and then to dispose of the same, in accordance with law. Therefore, in case the Ext.P1 lawyer notice was accompanied an application for renewal of licence in the prescribed form, as alleged by the petitioner, the first WPC No.6933/2011 3 respondent shall take up the said application in the prescribed form and proceed to consider the same in accordance with law. In case, it is not in the prescribed form, the petitioner shall be intimated the said fact and he should be given an opportunity to file an application in the prescribed form within a period of one week from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. On receipt of such an intimation the petitioner may file an application within a week thereafter, in the prescribed form and in case, such an application is filed by the petitioner it shall be considered and disposed of in accordance with law. At any rate, the entire exercise in terms of this judgment shall be made expeditiously, within a period of six weeks with notice to the petitioner and also to the additional second respondent. Sd/- (C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) jma //true copy// P.A to Judge