IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND JULY 2008 / 11TH ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 10204 of 2008(M) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- UMMER KOYA.M., AGED 47 YEARS, S/O.ALAVI, MUKKATTIL HOUSE, KINAR ROAD, THOTTAKKARA .P.O., OTTAPALAM, PIN - 679 102 PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.K.A.JALEEL SRI.P.M.MOHAMMED HASSAN RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. OTTAPALAM MUNICIPALITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, OTTAPALAM, PIN - 679 102, PALAKKAD. 2. THE SECRETARY, OTTAPALAM MUNICIPALITY, OTTAPALAM P.O., PIN - 679 102, PALAKKAD. 3. M.A.KADER, MUKKATTIL HOUSE, KINAR ROAD, THOTTAKKARA P.O., OTTAPALAM, PIN - 679 102, PALAKKAD. ADDL.R4. THE TAHSILDAR, OTTAPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DT. ADDL.R5. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, OTTAPALAM, PALAKKAD DT. (ADDL.R4 AND R5 ARE IMPLEADED SUO MOTU AS PER ORDER DT 26.3.2008 IN WPC NO.10204/08. BY ADV. SRI.V.B.RAMANUNNI MENON FOR R.3 SMT.S.INDU FOR ADV.COMMSR. SRI.K.K.CHANDRAN PILLAI FOR R1 AND R2 GOVT.PLEADER SMT.K.R.DEEPA FOR ADDL.R4 AND R5 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.10204/08 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF LICENCE DT 2.6.05 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR CONDUCTING BAKERY BUSINESS. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF DEMAND BILL ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER FOR THE PERIOD 2007-08 DT NIL, FOR HIS BUSINESS UNDER THE NAME AND STYLE ' SWEET PALACE'. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF RECEIPT DT 7.3.2008 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR PAYMENT OF RS.300/- EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF PHOTOGRAPH OF THE SHOP ROOM OF THE PETITIONER WHICH IS NOW LEFT OPEN. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE ANTONY DOMINIC, J. =============== W.P.(C) NO. 10204 OF 2008 M ==================== Dated this the 2nd day of July, 2008 J U D G M E N T The claim of the petitioner is for renewal of a licence in respect of the shop room in his possession and belonging to the 3rd respondent, who is none other than his brother. 2. Standing counsel for the Municipality submits that a portion of the building belonging to the 3rd respondent was demolished by the revenue authorities while removing unauthorised constructions. It is stated that if the area belonging to the 3rd respondent and which is under the occupation of the petitioner is marked and the premises enclosed properly the Municipality has no objection in renewing the licence provided the arrears of tax due is also cleared. 3. In view of the stand now disclosed by the Municipality before this court, what is first required to be done is that the building in question should be marked and enclosed properly. This is a matter for the 3rd respondent owner to do. 4. It is directed that once the area in question is marked and closed, it will be open to the petitioner to make an application to the WPC 10204/08 :2 : Municipality, which shall conduct an inspection of the premises and if it is satisfied with the work that has been done, the application for licence made by the petitioner will be reconsidered on condition that the tax due is also cleared in the meanwhile. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp