IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER MONDAY, THE 11TH OCTOBER 2010 / 19TH ASWINA 1932 WP(C).No. 29805 of 2010(A) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- NEERAJ PAVOOR , S/O.LATE PAVOOR BALAKRISHNAN, 18/1362 A, "REMADEVI"PUTHIYARA PO KASABA, KARIKUNNU, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT PIN 673 004. BY ADV. SRI.K.V.SOHAN SMT.SREEJA SOHAN.K. SRI.GEORGE JOSEPH PULIMOOTTIL SRI.K.DILIP SRI.ROVIN RODRIGUES RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. K.P.PRABHAKARAN ,S/O.K.P.KORUKUTTY AISWARIYA NIVAS, VALAYANAD AMSOM AND DESOM P.O.KOMMERY, KOZHIKKODE DISTRICT PIN 673 007. 2. KOZHIKODE CORPORATION REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY CORPORATION OFFICE, KOZHIKODE BEACH PIN 673 032. 3. THE HEALTH INSPECTOR 17TH DIVISION, KOZHIKODE CORPORATION PALAYAM BUS STAND BUILDING,KOZHIKODE 673 001. ADV. SRI.K.D.BABU,SC,KOZHIKODE CORPORATION FOR R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: A.K. Basheer, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - WP(C)No. 29805 of 2010 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 11th day of October, 2010 Judgment Petitioner is stated to be one of the legal heirs of late Pavoor Balakrishnan. He claims that he is in occupation of a building situated within the limits of Kozhikode Corporation that was leased out by respondent No.1 to his late father Pavoor Balakrishnan. His father had been conducting a lodge in the said building. After the death of his father, petitioner allegedly continued to run the lodge. However the Corporation after noticing that there was some seepage or leakage of water in the ground floor, issued a notice to respondent No.1, who is admittedly the owner of the building directing him to carry out the repairs. It appears that the building was closed down by Corporation authorities since repairs were not carried out. 2. Petitioner contends that he has now carried out the repairs and that the building is now fit for occupation. But his grievance is that the Corporation is not renewing the licence to run the lodge. 3. The sole prayer in the writ petition reads thus: “(b) Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ or order directing the second respondent to issue licence in the name of the petitioner on behalf of the legal heirs of deceased Pavoor WPC.29805/10. : 2 : Balakrishnan, the lessee under the first respondent for conduct of the lodging house in building No.17/1998 C of Calicut Corporation;” 4. It is admitted by the petitioner that the Corporation had issued licence to run the lodge in the name of respondent No.1. But the case of the petitioner is that his father had been running the lodge till his death though the licence stood in the name of respondent No.1. In other words, the contention of the petitioner appears to be that the Corporation had recognised his father as the licensee though the licence stood in the name of respondent No.1. 5. Learned Standing counsel for the Corporation after getting instructions submits that the contentions raised by the petitioner are wholly untenable and the petitioner is not entitled to get any relief from this Court. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this Court may at least direct the Corporation to take a decision on Ext.P8 application submitted by the petitioner before the Corporation for issue of a licence to run the lodge. 7. In my view, the prayer is only to be rejected for reasons more than one. Admittedly the Corporation has already issued a licence to run the lodge in favour of respondent No.1. WPC.29805/10. : 3 : It maybe true that the validity of the licence might have expired on March 31, 2010. It is not clear as to whether respondent No.1 had already put in an application for renewal of the licence. In any view of the matter, it is for the Corporation to decide whether the licence is to be renewed in favour of respondent No.1 or whether any fresh licence is to be issued to the petitioner ignoring the fact that respondent No.1 had been granted licence to run the lodge for the last several years. 8. If any application like Ext.P8 has been submitted by the petitioner, I do not find any reason why the Corporation will not take an appropriate decision in the matter. But I am not satisfied that a writ in the nature of mandamus has to be issued as prayed for. Writ Petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed. A.K. Basheer Judge. an.