IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 8TH JANUARY 2010 / 18TH POUSHA 1931 WP(C).No. 33793 of 2009(T) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- RAFI.P.L, S/O.LONAPPAN PERINCHERRI HOUSE, KURIACHIRA, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.DINESH MATHEW J.MURICKEN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THRISSUR CORPORATION, REP BY ITS SECRETARY, THRISSUR. 2. THRISSUR CORPORATION COUNCIL REP BY ITS MAYOR, THRISSUR, CORPORATION. 3. THE MAYOR, THRISSUR CORPORATION 4. HEALTH OFFICER THRISSUR CORPORATION. 5. C.V.JOSE, S/O.VAREETH CHITTALAPPILLY MISSION QUARTERS, THRISSUR. ADV. SRI.K.B.MOHANDAS,SC,THRISSUR CORPORATIO FOR R1 TO 4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/01/2010, ALONG WITH WPC NO. 34321 OF 2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J ....................... W.P.(C)s.33793 & 34321 of 2009 ....................... Dated this the 8th day of January, 2010 JUDGMENT 1. In W.P.(C).33793/2009, the challenge is against Ext.P8 while in W.P.(C).34321/2009, the implementation of Ext.P8 is sought. The issue being common, reference is made to the pleadings in W.P.(C).33793/2009. 2. The petitioner states that he is carrying on the business of storage and sale of chemicals and detergents in building No.9/640 (14) and 9/640/12 & 13 of Thrissur Corporation. On a complaint made by the petitioner in W.P.(C). 34321/2009 that the petitioner is carrying on manufacturing activities installing motor, without any licence, he was issued Ext.P1 notice requiring closure of his establishments. Thereupon he filed Ext.P2 appeal to the Corporation Council and that during the pendency of the appeal, an attempt was made to enforce Ext.P1 order. 3. Thereupon, he approached this Court by filing W.P.(C). 32080/2007. That writ petition was disposed of by Ext.P3 W.P.(C).33793 & 34321/09 2 judgment dated 26.11.2007 directing consideration of the appeal keeping Ext.P1 in abeyance. It was directed that while considering the appeal a reasoned order shall be passed. In the meanwhile, the petitioner in W.P.(C). 34321/2009, also approached this Court by filing W.P.(C). 21544/2008 seeking implementation of Ext.P1. The said writ petition was disposed of by Ext.P4 judgment dated 31.7.2008, taking note of the pendency of the appeal filed by the petitioner. Subsequently notice was issued by the appellate authority and the petitioner states that he was heard by the Health Supervisor of the Corporation. It appears that the Health Supervisor submitted his report to the Health Standing Committee of the Corporation, which recommended that in respect of his business in building No.9/640 (14), petitioner should confine himself to licensed activities and that in so far as his activities in building No.9/640/12 & 13 are concerned, he had no licence and therefore, the establishement should be closed down. This recommendation of the Standing Committee was accepted by the Council and Ext.P9 order was issued. W.P.(C).33793 & 34321/09 3 4. Following Ext.P9 petitioner was issued Ext.P5 notice. Thereupon the petitioner filed W.P.(C).18231/2009 challenging Exts.P9 order and Ext.P5 notice. That writ petition was disposed of by Ext.P6 judgment, on the ground that the petitioner was heard by the Health Supervisor, but the appeal was disposed of by the Council without hearing the petitioner. Accordingly, setting aside Exts.P9 and P5, the writ petition was disposed of directing the Council to hear the petitioner and decide the matter in accordance with law. Accordingly, he was issued Ext.P7 notice and was heard on 29.8.2009. Thereafter Ext.P8 order has been issued. It is challenging Ext.P8, W.P.(C).33793/2009 is filed. As already stated, W.P.(C).34321/2009 is filed by the complainant, seeking implementation of Ext.P8 order. 5. The contentions raised by the Counsel for the petitioner are that Ext.P8 is not a speaking order and that such a laconic order has been passed against the direction in Ext.P3 judgment requiring the respondent to pass a reasoned order. It is also his case that none of the grounds raised in Ext.P2 appeal have been dealt with while disposing W.P.(C).33793 & 34321/09 4 of the appeal. Lastly it was contended that in Ext.P8, the 1st respondent has relied on Ext.P9 which is already set aside by this Court in Ext.P6 judgment. 6. I heard the learned counsel appearing for the Corporation and also the petitioner in W.P.(C).34321/2009 who has also been impleaded as 5th respondent in W.P.(C). 33793/2009. 7. The learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation and the petitioner in W.P.(C).34321/2009, invited my attention to the pleadings in W.P.(C).34321/2009 and contended that the activities carried on by the petitioner are totally illegal and therefore his establishments are liable to be closed down. 8. As already stated, the challenge in W.P.(C).33793/2009 is against Ext.P8 decision taken by the Corporation. A reading of this order shows that apart from stating that the petitioner has been heard, that he reiterated his contention, no reason whatsoever has been given in Ext.P8 order for rejecting the appeal filed by the petitioner. Therefore, I W.P.(C).33793 & 34321/09 5 find that Ext.P8 order does not contain any reason and that it was passed without any application of mind. For this reason, Ext.P8 deserves to be quashed. 9. However, that does not fully come to the help of the petitioner. This is for the reason that the allegation against the petitioner is that in respect of his premises at 9/640 (14), although he has been granted licence for storing and selling chemicals and detergents, he was using electric motor and carrying on manufacturing activities. Although this allegation is denied by the petitioner, having regard to the nature of the allegation, I am inclined to think that till the Corporation reconsiders the matter, the petitioner will have to confine himself only to the licensed activities. It is also directed that the Corporation will be free to inspect the premises and to ensure that the petitioner's activities not go beyond the licensed activities and in case he does so, Corporation will be free to take appropriate action. 10. Insofar as the premises occupied by the petitioner viz., 9/640/12 & 13 is concerned, the specific allegation of the W.P.(C).33793 & 34321/09 6 Corporation and the petitioner in W.P.(C).34321/2009 is that the petitioner does not have licence for any activity in this premises. Although the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that a deemed licence has accrued in favour of the petitioner in respect of this premises, neither has the petitioner produced any material in support of his contentions nor has the petitioner made any specific plea in this writ petition. In such circumstances, I am prima facie of the opinion that the petitioner has no licence either express or deemed. Therefore, this judgment will not enable the petitioner to resume any activity in the said premises and if any activity is carried on in this premises, Corporation will be free to stop the same. 11. In the result, these writ petitions are disposed of with the following directions. (i). The Corporation shall reconsider Ext.P2 appeal with notice to the petitioner and other aggrieved persons including the petitioner in W.P.(C).34321/2009 and pass a reasoned order as directed by this Court in Ext.P3 judgment W.P.(C).33793 & 34321/09 7 in W.P.(C).32080/2007. This shall be done as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within six weeks of receipt of a copy of this judgment. (ii). In the meanwhile, petitioner will be permitted to carry on only the licensed activities in building No.9/640 (14) and shall not resort to any activity in building No.9/640/ 12, 13. It is made clear that all contentions of both sides are left open. ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge mrcs