IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 15TH JULY 2008 / 24TH ASHADHA 1930 W.P(C).No. 18542 of 2008(G) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------- VARKEY'S RETAIL VENTURES PVT., LTD., HAVING ITS REGISTRERED OFFICE AT NO.32/1174E, VARKEYS CIVIL LIME ROAD PALARIVATTOM KOCHI-25, REP. BY ITS DIRECTOR MR.P.I.DENNIS BY ADV. SRI.R.MURALEEDHARAN PILLAI SRI.P.V.LONACHAN RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1) THE CORPORATION OF TRIVANDRUM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2) TRIBUNAL FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.N.NANDAKUMARA MENON (SR.) FOR R1 SRI.P.K.MANOJKUMAR FOR R1 GOVT. PLEADER, SMT. K.R. DEEPA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. =============== W.P.(C) NO. 18542 OF 2008 G ==================== Dated this the 15th day of July, 2008 J U D G M E N T The prayer in this writ petition is to direct the respondent Corporation to issue a trade licence to the petitioner in view of Exts. P3 and P3(a). There is also a prayer to restrain the Corporation from interfering with the business of the petitioner carried on T.C.No.25/695/3 at Thycaud. 2. Petitioner is a commercial establishment having a shop situated in building No.T.C.No.25/695/3 of the 1st respondent Corporation. Petitioner submits that in order to commence business in the aforesaid premises, they had submitted Exts. P3 and P3(a) applications for trade licence. Though the application was received, the Secretary did not pass any order or communicated the same within the time specified in the Act. Thereupon, on the basis that a deemed licence has accrued in its favour, petitioner commenced business operations on 18/11/2007 and is continuing the business on that basis. 3. According to the petitioner, in order to comply with the WPC 18542/08 :2 : formalities under the ESI Act , Provident Fund Act etc, they need a certificate of the Corporation to the effect that the business is being run on the basis of a licence under the Municipalities Act. It is for that purpose, the petitioner seeks atleast a certificate from the Corporation that its establishment is a duly licensed one. 4. Though the fact that the petitioner's establishment is run as stated above is accepted by the Corporation, counsel for the Corporation expressed their inability to issue a certificate to the above effect. According to him, there is no such practice. Though the so called practice can be no answer, but then, even if the Corporation is not issuing a certificate as requested by the petitioner, still, the fact that the petitioner has a deemed licence accrued in its favour is not in dispute. If that be so, there is nothing standing in the way of the petitioner completing the procedural formalities under the ESI and PF Act. Accordingly, it is directed that this judgment will serve as a certificate granted by the Corporation, as sought for by the petitioner and making use of this judgment, it will be open to the petitioner to complete the procedural WPC 18542/08 :3 : formalities under the ESI and PF Acts. 5. In so far as the prayer of the petitioner that the respondent Corporation shall refrain from interfering with its business, since it is accepted that petitioner has a deemed license in its favour, absence of licence will not be a ground for the Corporation to interfere with the petitioner's business. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp