IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR.P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR THURSDAY, THE 25TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 6TH PHALGUNA 1931 WA.No. 325 of 2010() -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.4772/2010 Dated 19/02/2010 APPELLANT/PETITIONER: --------------------------- T.P. SATHEESAN, S/O. K.V. PAPPAN, MAHAKAVI BHARATHIAR ROAD, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-35. BY ADV. SRI.S.SANAL KUMAR SMT.BHAVANA VELAYUDHAN RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: ------------------------------------ 1. TH KOCHI CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, KOCHI. 2. THE SECRETARY, KOCHI CORPORATION, KOCHI. 3. THE HEALTH OFFICER, HEALTH DEPARTMENT, KOCHI. R1 SRI. C.M. SURSH BABU. SR. GOVT. PLEADER SRI. BENJAMIN PAUL. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMAN Ag. CJ & C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.A. No. 325 OF 2010 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = DATED THIS, THE 25TH DAY OF FEBRUARY , 2010. J U D G M E N T Ramachandran Nair, J. Appellant started a business concern within Cochin Corporation for running a parcel agency without taking any licence under Section 447(1) of the Kerala Municipalities Act. When the public complained against obstruction caused by parcel lorries parked in front of the appellant's office, Municipal authorities woke up and issued notice, after inspection held on 23.12.2009. By this time, appellant had already carried on business for two years without break. Thereafter, appellant has filed an application for licence on 24.12.2009 which is still not disposed of. After expiry of 30 days, appellant's case is that, there is a deemed licence based on which he can continue with his business. However, Corporation has issued Ext.P8 proposing action against him for carrying on business without licence. Appellant's challenge against Ext.P8 notice before the learned Single Judge was without success and hence this writ appeal. 2. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant and standing counsel for Corporation. Even though there is violation on the part of the appellant in carrying on business without licence, for which WA 325/2010 2 Corporation can certainly take action, we notice that the appellant's business without licence came to the notice of the Corporation only when somebody complained of road block by the vehicles which came to appellant's office. In other words, but for this complaint, Corporation would have actually continued to allow the appellant to carry on business without licence. In any case, since appellant was allowed to carry on business for two years without licence, we feel that appellant can be exonerated from further action pursuant to Ext.P8 for the period for which he has already done business, on conditions. Since the Corporation is free to launch even prosecution for carrying on business without licence, we fix Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) as sufficient fine in lieu of all penal action including prosecution against the appellant by the Corporation. 3. Consequently, the writ appeal is disposed of with a direction to the Corporation not to proceed with Ext.P8 on condition that appellant remits Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) within one month from today. If payment is made as above, then appellant is allowed to continue to do business till 31.3.2010 without any application for the period until then. However, appellant will make an application for licence for the next financial year which will be considered and orders passed by the Corporation at the earliest and in any case, before 30.4.2010. We also WA 325/2010 3 make it clear that if appellant causes obstruction by parking vehicles on road side, particularly, during day time, Corporation will be free to decline licence and even cancel licence after grant, on that ground. P.R. RAMAN, (Ag. CHIEF JUSTICE) C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, (JUDGE). knc/-