IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 12TH APRIL 2011 / 22ND CHAITHRA 1933 WP(C).No. 11433 of 2011(D) ----------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- P.V.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, S/O. DEVAKI AMMA, PUTHENVEETTIL, 'SANTHI', KOORIYIL LANE, CHALAPPURAM P.O., CALICUT-2. BY ADV. SRI.R.RAMADAS RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. KOZHIKODE CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, KOZHIKODE-673 001. 2. THE SECRETARY, KOZHIKODE CORPORATION, KOZHIKODE-673 001. 3. HEALTH OFFICER, KOZHIKODE CORPORATION, KOZHIKODE-673 001. BY ADV. SRI. K.D. BABU,SC, KOZHIKODE CORPORATION THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/04/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. -------------------------------------------- W.P.(C). NO.11433 OF 2011 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 12th day of April, 2011 JUDGMENT This Writ Petition has been filed mainly challenging Ext.P6 order passed by the third respondent. The petitioner has approached the first respondent through Ext.P5 application for renewal of licence. However, the said application was considered by the third respondent and thereupon, Ext.P6 order was passed rejecting the same. Relying on the provisions under Section 447(3) of the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994 (for short 'the Act'), the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the third respondent is incompetent to consider the question of renewal of licence submitted by the petitioner and in fact, the competent authority to consider Ext.P5 is the council. Section 447(3) of the Act reads thus: The council shall, within thirty days from the date of receipt of the application, by order and subject to such terms and conditions as it deems fit, either grant a licence for the use of a place for conducting a dangerous or offensive trade or in the interest of the public refuse to grant such licence. A perusal of the same would reveal that the authority competent to consider Ext.P5 is the council. Evidently, going by the provisions under W.P.(C) NO.11433/2011 2 Section 447(2) of the Act, the application for renewal of D & O licence has to be submitted to the Secretary and the decision thereon has to be taken under Section 447(3) of the Act by the concerned council. It is thus obvious that the third respondent was incompetent to consider Ext.P5 and pass orders thereon. In fact, the second respondent should have placed it before the council for consideration. It be the position, I am of the considered view that Ext.P6 is unsustainable. Therefore, Ext.P6 is set aside. Consequently, there will be a direction to the second respondent to place Ext.P5 application before the council of the first respondent corporation for proper consideration of the same, in accordance with the provisions under Section 447(3) of the Act, within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. On receipt of the same, it shall be considered and orders shall be passed thereon within a further period of two weeks. This Writ Petition is disposed of, accordingly. (C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) spc // true copy // P.A. to Judge W.P.(C) NO.11433/2011 3 C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. JUDGMENT September, 2010 W.P.(C) NO.11433/2011 4