IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 19TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 30TH MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 4772 of 2010(V) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- T.P.SATHEESAN, S/O. K.V.PAPPAN, MAHAKAVI BHARATHIAR ROAD, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-35. BY ADV. SRI.S.SANAL KUMAR SMT.BHAVANA VELAYUDHAN RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------- 1. THE KOCHI CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, KOCHI. 2. THE SECRETARY, KOCHI CORPORATION, KOCHI. 3. THE HEALTH OFFICER, HEALTH DEPARTMENT, KOCHI. ADV. SRI.C.M.SURESH BABU,SC,COCHIN CORPORATION GOVT.PLEADER SMT.K.R.DEEPA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 4772 OF 2010 (V) ===================== Dated this the 19th day of February, 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioner challenges Ext.P8. Ext.P8 dated 16.1.2010 is a notice issued by the Health Officer of the respondent Corporation, intimating the petitioner that since his Parcel Service establishment is functioning without a licence, action will be initiated as provided under Section 447(1) of the Kerala Municipalities Act. The case of the petitioner is that he having made Ext.P3 application for licence on 24/12/2009, and as the Corporation did not pass any order thereon, a deemed licence as provided in Section 492(15) has accrued in his favour and therefore, Ext.P8 is illegal and without jurisdiction. It is on this basis, the writ petition is filed for quashing Ext.P8 and for a declaration that the petitioner has a deemed licence in his favour. 2. The case was adjourned with a direction to the standing counsel for the Corporation to obtain instructions. Standing Counsel submits that for the last more than two years, petitioner's establishment was functioning without obtaining licence. It is stated that the Corporation had received complaints WPC 4772/10 :2 : against the unauthorised functioning of the petitioner's establishment causing obstruction to the traffic and that the complaint was received on 15/12/2009. It is stated that the Health Inspector of the Corporation inspected the premises of the petitioner on 23/12/2009 and realising that action is being initiated against him, Ext.P3 application was made by the petitioner on 24/12/2009. It is stated that hence application was thus made by the petitioner only to thwart any action against him in terms of the provisions of the Municipalities Act and that no deemed licence can be claimed by the petitioner. 3. Even according to the petitioner, the establishment was functioning for more than two years. Despite the mandatory requirement of obtaining licence, the petitioner did not obtain any licence. This led to complaints and inspection held on 23/12/2009. It is only thereupon and for preventing any action from the part of the Corporation that licence application was made by the petitioner on 24/12/2009. 4. In my view, though the provisions of the Municipalities Act do provide for deemed licence, such deemed licence can be claimed by a person only in a case where an application is made WPC 4772/10 :3 : and there has been inaction on the part of the Secretary of the Corporation, the licencing authority in considering and passing orders on the application. Such provisions of the Act cannot be misused in a situation as in this case, and deemed licence cannot be claimed to prevent coercive action against a person for having violated the statutory provisions of the Municipality Act. 5. I am not prepared to think that in the circumstances as available in this case, the petitioner can claim the benefit of deemed licence. Ext.P8, in my view, is perfectly justified, and the petitioner cannot claim the assistance of this Court to prevent the Corporation from initiating action for the violation admittedly that has been committed by the petitioner. Writ petition is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp