IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM TUESDAY, THE 24TH MAY 2011 / 3RD JYAISHTA 1933 WP(C).No. 13484 of 2011(I) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- M.H.NAJMUDHEEN, S/O. MUHAMED HANEEFA, VIDYA NAGAR NO.93, KUTCHERY WARD, KOTTAMUKKU, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.NAGARAJ NARAYANAN SRI.SAIJO HASSAN SRI.BENOJ C AUGUSTIN SRI.PRATHAP PILLAI SRI.RAFEEK. V.K. SRI.SEBIN THOMAS RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – 695 001. 2. THE DISTRICT TRANSPORT OFFICER, K.S.R.T.C., KOLLAM – 691 001. 3. THE SECRETARY, KOLLAM CORPORATION, KOLLAM – 691 001. ADV. SRI.M.K.CHANDRA MOHAN DAS,SC,KOLLAM MPT FOR R-3 SRI.V.V.NANDAGOPAL NAMBIAR FOR R1 & R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/05/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J --------------------------------------- W.P(C) No.13484 of 2011-I ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 24th day of May, 2011. J U D G M E N T This writ petition is filed seeking direction against the 2nd respondent to clear the liabilities due to the 3rd respondent, pertaining to arrears of property tax. According to the petitioner, huge amounts of property tax is due from the 2nd respondent to the 3rd respondent Corporation. The petitioner is a person intending to participate in an auction sale with respect to licence to conduct business in the shop rooms owned by the 2nd respondent. Apprehension of the petitioner is that, even if he became successful bidder, he may not be in a position to obtain the required licence from the 3rd respondent for conducting business in the shop room, because the 3rd respondent may refuse permission on the ground of arrears of property tax due from the 2nd respondent. 2. I am of the view that, the apprehension expressed by the petitioner is highly premature to be considered. The petitioner could not compel the 2nd respondent to clear the dues on the ground that he want to participate in the auction. If the W.P(C) No.13484 of 2011-I 2 petitioner has got any apprehension that he may not be able to conduct business in the shop room, he can very well refrain from participating in the auction. 3. However, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that subsequent to filing of this writ petition, he had participated in the auction and became successful in getting one shop room. However, standing counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2 is not in a position to concede the above fact. 4. If the petitioner is the successful bidder with respect to any of the shop rooms, it is for him to approach the 3rd respondent seeking necessary licence. If there is any refusal to grant licence, he can seek appropriate remedy during that time. However, directions sought for in this writ petition could not be granted. 5. Hence the writ petition dismissed reserving liberty to the petitioner to seek appropriate relief for getting licence from the 3rd respondent. C.K.ABDUL REHIM JUDGE ab