IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 18TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 27TH BHADRA 1931 WP(C).No. 37089 of 2008(M) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------- 1. K.BHARATHAN, S/O.LATE K.PERAVAKUTTY, JANAKI NILAYAM, MARIKUNNU P.O., CHAVAYOOR, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 2. K.SIBISH, S/O.K.RAVINDRAN, THONDAYAD, CHEVARAMBALAM, NELLIKODE AMSOM, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.B.KRISHNAN SRI.R.PARTHASARATHY RESPONDENT(S): ------------------- 1. K.DINESH BABU, S/O.CHANDUKUTTY, M/S.SANKARAN BAKERY, KOZHIKODE. 2. KOZHIKODE CORPORATION REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, CORPORATION OFFICE, KOZHIKODE. 3. THE SECRETARY, KOZHIKODE CORPORATION. ADV. SRI.K.D.BABU,SC,KOZHIKODE CORPORATION FOR R2,3 SRI.G.UNNIKRISHNON FOR R1 SRI.K.SANEESH KUMAR FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.37089/08 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF FORM A ISSUED BY REGISTRAR OF FIRMS, TRIVANDRUM MAINTAINED UNDER SECTION 59 OF THE INDIAN PARTNERSHIP ACT. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR RENEWAL OF LICENCE DATED 27.2.2006. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER/COMMUNICATION DATED 3.3.2006 REJECTING THE EXT.P2 APPLICATION. EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION/ORDER DATED 14.7.2006. EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 30.10.2008 IN REVISION PETITION NO.103/2008 BY THE TRIBUNAL FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. EXT.P6: A TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF REVISION DATED 5.2.2008. EXT.P7: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN OS 648/2006 DATED 4.6.2007 OF the ADDL.MUNSIFF-1, KOZHIKODE. EXT.P8: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN REVISION PETITION NO.10/2008 DATED 30.10.2008 OF THE TRIBUNAL FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. EXT.P9: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN OS 92/2007 PASSED BY THE ADDL.MUNSIFF-1, KOZHIKODE DATED 31.7.2008. EXTS. OF R1 EXT. R1(a): TRUE COPY OF THE PARTNERSHIP DEED DT.19.3.91. EXT.R1(b): TRUE COPY OF NOTICE DT.22.4.02 GIVEN BY 1ST PETITIONER. EXT.R1(c): TRUE COPY OF THE LICENCE RECEIPT FOR THE YEARS 2003-04, 2004-05, 2005-06. EXT.R1(d): TRUE COPY OF THE INVITATION CARD. EXT.R1(e): TRUE COPY OF ORDER IN IA 1357/07 IN OS 92/07. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Rp ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 37089 OF 2008 (M) ===================== Dated this the 18th day of September, 2009 J U D G M E N T The dispute in relation to a partnership firm has led to the filing of this writ petition. 2. The issue is in relation to M/s.Sankaran Bakery, Kozhikode. The controversy started from the year 2006-07 when the 1st respondent made an application for renewal of trade licence in his individual name. It is stated that the application was returned pointing out certain defects and was resubmitted by the 1st respondent in March 2006. However, the Health Inspector by Ext.P4 intimated the 1st respondent that the application cannot be considered for the reason that the first petitioner had objected to grant of licence on the application made him. At that stage, the shop was also forcibly closed down, which was later reinstated pursuant to the orders passed by the Civil Court. 3. Against the order of the Health Inspector, an appeal was filed by the 1st respondent to the Committee, which was rejected. The appellate order was challenged before the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions, in a revision filed by the 1st WPC 37089/08 :2 : respondent. In that revision, petitioners were not parties. The revision was disposed of by Ext.P8 order holding that a deemed licence has accrued in favour of the 1st respondent and hence the stop memo issued was illegal. Proceeding further, Tribunal ordered that it will be open to the 1st respondent to make an application for licence and that if such an application is made, the same will be considered. It was at that stage challenging Ext.P8, the petitioners have filed this writ petition. 4. Several factual contentions have been raised by both the petitioners and the 1st respondent highlighting the inter se disputes between the partners. I do not think it is necessary or proper to advert or deal with such factual issues in this proceedings. 5. It is now pointed out by the 1st respondent that after the period of the licence applied for him has expired, which was dealt with by the Tribunal in Ext.P8 order, he applied for trade licence for the year 2008-09 on 30/11/2008. It is stated that since this Court has stayed Ext.P8 order in this writ petition, the Secretary has not considered the said application. 6. Having regard to the above, I feel it is only appropriate WPC 37089/08 :3 : that the Secretary should consider the said application filed by the 1st respondent with notice to the petitioners, who also claim to be partners of the firm and that such consideration shall be untrammelled by the conclusions arrived at by the Tribunal in Ext.P8 order. 7. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of with the following directions: That the 3rd respondent, the Secretary of the 2nd respondent shall consider the application dated 30/11/2008 made by the 1st respondent seeking trade licence for the year 2008-09 with notice to the petitioners and the 1st respondent in the light of the above. This shall be done, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within 4 weeks from the date of production of a copy of this judgment. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp