IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 26TH JUNE 2009 / 5TH ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 17219 of 2009(V) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- P.P.MASOOD, MANAGING PARTNER, "COLLECTIONS", BUNK NO.10, P.M.TAJ ROAD, KOZHIKODE, RESIDING AT 27/1359,'ALIF', P.O.PUTHIYARA, KOZHIKODE-673004. BY ADV. MR.A.A.ABUL HASSAN. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. SECRETARY, KOZHIKODE CORPORATION, KOZHIKODE. 2. T.K.MUHAMMED SHERIEF, S/O KUNHAVARA, VAHEEDA NIVAS, R.C.ROAD, KOZHIKODE-32. R1 BY ADV. MR. K.D. BABU, S.C. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/06/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C).No.17219 of 2009-V = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 26th day of June, 2009. JUDGMENT The petitioner states that the Kozhikode Corporation gave Ext.P1 licence to the second respondent to occupy an item of land for the purpose of a commercial activity. According to the petitioner, he and the second respondent entered into a partnership and had been running the establishment. He states that with the passage of time, disputes arose between the petitioner and the second respondent resulting in litigations before the civil court and also a decree in favour of the petitioner against the second respondent. The second respondent has now applied to the first respondent stating that he no more wants the benefit of Ext.P1 licence and he surrenders the same and that the Corporation can take back the property. While the petitioner stands to contend that this is only a malafide WP(C)17219/09 -: 2 :- exercise by the second respondent, I am of the considered view that the petitioner has no equitable or other grounds on which he could claim for any relief against the Corporation. This is because the second respondent was given the piece of land on the firm condition that he will remove the building as and when required by the Corporation by entering into Ext.P2 partnership. The second respondent had essentially included the petitioner to enjoy the rights under the licence given by the Corporation. This is impermissible. Therefore, the petitioner cannot challenge any action that the first respondent may take on the basis of the second respondent returning his right and possession under Ext.P1. Therefore, without prejudice to the petitioner seeking any relief from the first respondent, this writ petition is dismissed. THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. Sha/300609