IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 5TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 14TH KARTHIKA 1930 WP(C).No. 27375 of 2008(H) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- RELIANCE LEISURES LIMITED, 29/1338 CHANDRIKA CHAMBERS, S.A.ROAD, VYTTILA JUNCTION COCHIN 682 019 REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY, JOSHY GEORGE. BY ADV. SRI.A.KUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. COCHIN CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, COCHIN. 2. COCHIN CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY THE WORSHIPFUL MAYOR, COCHIN CORPORATION COUNCIL, KOCHI. ADV. SRI.C.M.SURESH BABU,SC,COCHIN CORPORATI FOR R1 & 2 SRI.M.K.CHANDRA MOHANDAS FOR R1-2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/11/2008, ALONG WITH WPC NO. 27419 OF 2008 WPC NO. 27400 OF 2008 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: W.P.C.NO. 27375/2008. -------------------------------------------------------------------- EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION DT. 1-9-2008. EXT.P2 NOTE OF THE SECRETARY DT. 15-5-2007. EXT.P3 RESOLUTION DT. 13-7-2007. EXT.P4 COVERING LETTER DT. 4-9-2008. EXT.P5 POSTAL RECEIPT. EXT.P6 JUDGMENT IN W.P.C.NO. 7431/2008 DT. 21-5-2008. EXT.P7 JUDGMENT IN W.P.C. NO. 14475/08 DT. 22-5-2008. EXT.P8 JUDGMENT IN W.A.NO. 1311/2008. [TRUE COPY] P.S TO JUDGE. S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W. P (C) Nos. 27375, 27400 & 27419 of 2008 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 5th November, 2008. J U D G M E N T The petitioners are three Companies which intend to start retail stores within the jurisdiction of the Cochin Corporation. They have applied for licences for running trade establishments under the Kerala Municipality Act and the Rules thereunder. Their grievance is that their applications are not being considered. According to them, the Corporation Council has already taken Ext. P3 decision not to issue licences to monopolistic establishments. The petitioners inter alia challenge Ext. P3 resolution of the Corporation on the ground that in view of Ext. P7 judgment confirmed in Ext. P8 judgment of the Division Bench of this Court, such a resolution is ultra vires the powers of the Corporation under the Kerala Municipality Act. The petitioners therefore seek the following reliefs: “A. Declare that Exhibit P.2 note and Exhibit P.3 resolution are ultra vires the Kerala Municipality Act and violative of Article 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India and are be rendered null and void and resultantly unenforceable in law. B Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing Exhibits P.2 and P.3. C. Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the first respondent to issue a license as sought for in Exhibit P.1 application for D&O trade and as envisaged under Section 447(3) of the Kerala Municipality Act. D. Issue a writ of prohibition or other appropriate writ, order or direction restraining the respondents from enforcing Exhibits P.2 and P.3” 2. Learned standing counsel for the Corporation submits that the petitioners have already approached the Tribunal for Local Self Government institutions in the matter and therefore these writ petitions are not maintainable. I am not in agreement with the contention raised by counsel for the Corporation in so far as there is a W.P.C. No. 27375/08 -: 2 :- challenge against Ext. P3 resolution of the Councilalso. Ext. P3 is a general resolution unrelated to the applications submitted by the petitioners. Therefore, I am bound to consider the challenge against Ext. P3 resolution in these writ petitions. 3. The contention raised by the petitioners is that such a resolution is ultra vires the Kerala Municipality Act and the Rules framed thereunder. This Court had occasion to consider the question as to whether licences can be denied on the ground that the applicant is a monopolistic trade establishment, which resulted in Exts.P 7 and P8 judgments in which it was held that licences cannot be denied on the ground that if granted the applicant would be having a monopolistic business in the State. I am satisfied that in view of Exts.P 7 and P8 judgments of this Court, the Corporation cannot pass such a resolution to deny licences to monopolistic trade establishments. Accordingly, Exts.P 2 and P3 are quashed. In relation to other prayers, the petitioners may raise their grievances either before the Corporation or before the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions. The writ petitions are disposed of as above. S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/