IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 2ND APRIL 2009 / 12TH CHAITHRA 1931 WP(C).No. 35587 of 2008(J) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- V.M.FAROOK, AGED 53 YEARS, S/O.V.M.MOHAMMED ALI, VEMPADI HOUSE, 43/2616, SRM ROAD, ERNAKULAM, THRIKKANARVATTOM DESOM, ERNAKULAM VILLAGE, KANAYANNUR TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.P.M.ZIRAJ RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE SECRETARY, CORPORATION OF KOCHI, KOCHI-31. 2. M/S.MONOSTEEL, IRON & STEEL MERCHANTS, KATTIKARAN LANE, COCHIN - 18, A PARTNERSHIP FIRM REPRESENTED BY ITS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER S.M.IMRAN, S/O.S.M.BADSHA, RESIDING AT BEERANKUNJU ROAD, COCHIN - 18. ADV. SMT.M.K.PUSHPALATHA,SC,COCHIN CORPORATI FOR R1 PRAVEEN.K.JOY,SC SRI.A.A.MOHAMMED NAZIR FOR R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/04/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: W.P.C.NO. 35587/2008 ------------------------------------------------------------------ EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DT. 25-9-2006. EXT.P2 ORDER DT. 22-2-2008. EXT.P3 ORDER DT. 24-6-2008. EXT.P4 APPLICATION DT. 1-4-2008. EXT.P5 UNDERTAKING DT. 1-4-2008. EXT.P6 APPLICATION DT. 14-5-2008. EXT.P7 AFFIDAVIT DT. 7-5-2008. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: ------------------------------------- EXT.R2 LETTER DT. 29-3-2008. [TRUE COPY] P.S TO JUDGE. S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W. P (C) No. 35587 of 2008 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 2nd April, 2009. J U D G M E N T The petitioner has filed this writ petition aggrieved by non- consideration of the petitioner's application for licence on the ground that the same is not supported by the no objection certificate from the 2nd respondent-landlord. The 2nd respondent-landlord submits before me that they have never objected to granting of licence to the petitioner, although they are prosecuting their petitions before the Rent Control Court for evicting the petitioner from the building in question. They would submit that the petitioner never approached them for consent. In view of the same, there cannot be any impediment for the 1st respondent to consider the application for licence submitted by the petitioner. 2. Counsel for the 1st respondent points out that Ext. P4 application is of the year 2008-2009, which period has already expired. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner shall submit another application for the coming year. In the above circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction that such application, if filed by the petitioner, shall be disposed of within one month from the date of receipt of the application. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/