IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 14TH JULY 2008 / 23RD ASHADHA 1930 W.P(C).No. 18723 of 2008(D) ----------------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------- S.SALIMKUTTY, T.C.39/1355, MARKET ROAD, CHALAI P.O., TRIVANDRUM. BY ADV. SRI.PRAVEEN VYASAN RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. THE SECRETARY, CORPORATION OF TRIVADNRUM CORPORATION BUILDINGS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE HEALTH OFFICER, CORPORATION OF TRIVANDRUM, CORPORATION BUILDING, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI. P.K. MANOJ KUMAR, SC FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C) No. 18723 OF 2008 - D = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 14th day of July 2008 J U D G M E N T Petitioner submits that his father had a licence for vegetable vending. According to him, his father expired and thereafter he sought renewal of the licence which has been rejected by the Corporation. The order rejecting renewal of licence was challenged before the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions and that also was dismissed by Ext. P2. It is stated that thereafter he filed Ext. P3 application for licence in his own name and that though Ext. P3 application was acknowledged by Ext. P4, orders were not passed by the Corporation. It is complaining of this, the writ petition was filed. 2. Standing Counsel, on instructions, has filed a statement and the stand taken is that though Ext. P3 was received, the same was incomplete in all respects. It is also stated that the petitioner had not remitted the prescribed fee in this behalf. It is offered that in case the petitioner files a fresh and proper application that will be W.P.(C) No. 18723 OF 2008 - 2 - considered by the respondent Corporation. 3. On going through Ext. P3, I am inclined to agree with the counsel for the Corporation that Ext.P3 cannot be treated as a valid application. Further, fee has also not been paid. If that be so, the Corporation cannot be faulted for not having granted licence in pursuance to Ext. P3. 4. In the circumstances of the case, the best action available to the petitioner is to file a fresh application. Therefore it is directed that if the petitioner files a fresh application which is complete in all respects to the respondent Corporation, the Corporation shall consider the same within two weeks of its receipt and orders thereon shall be passed and communicated to the petitioner. With this direction the writ petition is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE jan/-