IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 8TH MARCH 2010 / 17TH PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 7436 of 2010(D) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- LIYAKATH ALI, S/O.ALI, KIZHAKUMPARAMBIL HOUSE, KARUVAMBARA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.SAJEEV KUMAR K.GOPAL MS.AMBIKA RADHAKRISHNAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE MANJERI MUNICIPALITY, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE SECRETARY, MANJERI MUNICIPALITY. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/03/2010 , THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------ WP(C) No.7436 of 2010 (D) -------------------------- Dated, this the 8th day of March, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner submits that he has obtained licence from the respondent Municipality for selling fish. Ext.P1 is stated to be the receipt issued by the Municipality acknowledging remittance of fee for renewal of the licence. According to the petitioner, while the licence is thus valid, he has been issued Ext.P2 notice dated 22/01/2010 asking him to rectify the defects mentioned therein. It is stated that thereafter he was issued Ext.P3 notice requiring him to show cause why proceedings shall not be initiated. It is stated that on receipt of Ext.P3, he submitted Ext.P4 reply. The petitioner submits that since then the Municipality has not taken any final decision in this matter, and that while the matter is pending as such, he has been threatened that his shop will be closed down by the Municipality. It is on this allegation that this writ petition has been filed. 2. Allegation contained in Ext.P2 is that the petitioner is WP(C) No.7436/2010 -2- conducting business against the terms of the licence and in a most unhygienic manner. It is in pursuance to Ext.P2 that Ext.P3 notice was issued, and the petitioner claims to have submitted Ext.P4 reply. 3. Even if the petitioner has obtained a licence, that licence will enable the petitioner to conduct business strictly in accordance with the licence. Therefore, the fact that he has filed Ext.P4 reply does not mean that the Municipality cannot insist on the petitioner to comply with the licence conditions while carrying on the business. Now that Ext.P3 has been issued and Ext.P4 reply has been filed, it is necessary that the Municipality should decide on Ext.P3 in the light of the contentions urged by the petitioner in Ext.P4. In the meantime, the petitioner will be permitted to carry on his business strictly in compliance with the licence conditions. 4. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of with the following directions:- That the respondent Municipality shall decide on Ext.P3 in the light of Ext.P4 and with notice to the petitioner. This shall be done as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within three weeks of WP(C) No.7436/2010 -3- production of a copy of this judgment. 5. It is directed that in the meanwhile, the petitioner will be permitted to carry on his business strictly in compliance with the conditions of the licence and it is clarified that the Municipality will be free to take any action as is permissible in law, if there is any violation of the licence conditions. The petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment, along with a copy of this writ petition before the respondent Municipality for compliance. This writ petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg