IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 20TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 29TH KARTHIKA 1930 WP(C).No. 26213 of 2008(U) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- SIVADASAN, AGED 53 YEARS S/O. NANOO, DIVYADAS BHAVANAM, ARANOOTTIMANGALAM MURI, THAZHAKKARA VILLAGE, MAVILEKKARA, PROPRIETOR S.M.VEGETABLE STORE ROOM NO.142, MAVELIKKARA MUNCIPALITY. BY ADV. SRI.M.V.THAMBAN SRI.R.REJI SRI.B.BIPIN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. MAVELIKKARA MUNICIPALITY REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE SECRETARY, MAVELIKKARA MUNICIPALITY 3. P.C.ALEXANDER, PALAMOOTTIL, KOLLASSERIL, NADACKKAVU, MAVELIKKARA VILLAGE, MAVELIKKARA. ADV. SRI.P.B.SAHASRANAMAN FOR R3 SRI.K.JAGADEESH FOR R3 SRI.T.S.HARIKUMAR FOR R3 SRI.K.HARILAL,SC,MAVELIKARA MUNICIPALITY FOR R1,2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P(C).No.26213 of 2008 ================== Dated this the 20th day of November, 2008 J U D G M E N T The petitioner complains that his application for renewal of licence is not being considered by the 1st respondent-Municipality insisting on production of a consent letter from the 3rd respondent who is the owner of the land in which the petitioner's shop room is situated. According to the petitioner, in view of the decision of this Court in Marimuthu v Director General of Police [1999 (3) KLT 662] for renewal of a licence, consent of the landlord is not necessary. The petitioner, therefore, seeks a direction to the 1st respondent-Municipality to consider the application submitted by the petitioner for renewal of the licence without insisting on consent from the 3rd respondent-landlord. 2. This is stoutly opposed by the counsel for the 3rd respondent owner of the building. According to him, large amounts are due from the petitioner by way of licence fee, which the petitioner has not paid. According to him, it would come to about Rs.1,85,000/-. 3. I am of opinion that the question of payment of licence 2 fee to the landlord of a shop room is not a matter coming within the purview of this writ petition. If the 3rd respondent has a case that the licence fee is due from the petitioner, it is for him to approach the appropriate forum for recovery of the same. As far as renewal of licence is concerned, the 1st respondent has a duty to dispose of that application expeditiously. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the 1st respondent to consider and pass orders on the application for renewal of the licence submitted by the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner as well as the 3rd respondent. While doing so, the 1st respondent shall consider the applicability of the decision relied on by the petitioner to the case. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge 3