IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE TUESDAY, THE 18TH MARCH 2008 / 28TH PHALGUNA 1929 WP(C).No. 9110 of 2008(H) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ O.G.SANATH KUMAR, S/O.GEORGE, RESIDING AT OVUNGAL HOUSE, LESSONA ENCLAVE, ANCHERI P.O., THRISSUR - 6. BY ADV. SRI.V.CHITAMBARESH (SR.) SRI.T.C.SURESH MENON SRI.JIBU P THOMAS SRI.P.S.APPU RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE THRISSUR CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, CORPORATION OFFICE, THRISSUR. 2. JOSE, S/O.MATHEW, RESIDING AT MISSION QUARTERS, CHEMBUKAVU VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK. R1 BY ADV.MR.K.B.MOHANDAS THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE,J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No.9110 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated: 18th March, 2008 JUDGMENT Adv.Mr.K.B.Mohandas, Standing Counsel takes notice on behalf of the 1st respondent-Corporation. In the nature of the decision which is being taken hereunder, it is not necessary to issue notice to the 2nd respondent. 2. The case of the petitioner is that his father is a tenant of commercial building having door No.XXV/2041 within the area of the 1st respondent-Corporation belongig to the 2nd respondent and that he has been conducting trade in ayurvedic medicines in that building. The relationship between the landlord and the tenant is no longer cordial and the rent control proceedings have been initiated by the 2nd respondent for evicting the tenant. The petitioner's father, the original tenant passed away and is survived by his wife, four daughters and the only son, the petitioner, O.G.Sanath Kumar. Upon demise of the father, the petitioner applied to the Corporation for renewal of licence. The Corporation is insisting on production of consent letter from the 2nd respondent for considering the petitioner's application for renewal of licence. Mr.V.Chitambaresh, learned Senior Counsel would draw my attention to sub-section (4) of Section 492 of the Panchayat Raj Act and submit that insistence of W.P.C.No.9110/08 - 2 - the Corporation that the petitioner who is legal heir of the original licensee shall produce consent letter from the landlord is illegal. Having gone through the statutory provision, I am of the view that the submission of the learned Senior Counsel is well founded. The Corporation is not justified in insisting on any consent letter from the 2nd respondent for considering the petitioner's application for renewal of licence. Since there is considerable bad blood between the petitioner and the 2nd respondent, it will not be possible for the petitioner to obtain a consent letter from the 2nd respondent. The Corporation has to consider Ext.P5 representation submitted by the petitioner without insisting on any consent letter from the 2nd respondent. The only concern of the Corporation should be whether the petitioner is a legal heir and whether the other legal heirs are agreeable. Ext.P4 certificate issued by the Village Officer clearly shows that the petitioner is the only son of the deceased licensee. The Corporation will pass favourable orders on Ext.P5 once the petitioner produces NOC from the other legal heirs of the deceased whose names are given in Ext.P4. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. srd PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE W.P.C.No.9110/08 - 3 -