IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR THURSDAY, THE 8TH JULY 2010 / 17TH ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 12712 of 2010(L) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- TREESA ANTONY, W/O.LATE ANTONY, VALIYAVEETTIL HOUSE, KURIACHIRA, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.K.DILEEP KUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- THRISSUR CORPORATION, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, CORPORATION BUILDING, THRISSUR-1, THRISSUR DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.K.B.MOHANDAS,SC,THRISSUR CORPORATIO FOR R1 SRI.LELLULAL T.G.THUNDATHIL FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P.(C). No.12712/2010-L ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated this the 8th day of July, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner seeks for a direction to the respondent to renew the licence for a lathe workshop styled as New Southern Carriage which is being run in a rented shop room. Later, the landlord one Wilson, S/o.Kuriappan, Pulikkottil House, Thrissur sought for eviction before the Rent Control Court which was allowed and now, the matter is pending in appeal before the Rent Control Authority. 2. The petitioner's husband was running the workshop, who died on 22/05/2009. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application on 05/01/2010 for change of licence in her name. 3. The complaint raised by the petitioner is that inspite of lapse of 90 days, no further action is being taken by the respondent in the matter. It is presumed by the writ petitioner that the delay has occurred only on the basis of the dispute with the landlord and the requirement, if any, to produce a no-objection certificate from the landlord. W.P.(C). No.12712/2010 -:2:- 4. The respondent has filed a counter affidavit. It is pointed out in paragraph (3) that the application dated 05/01/2010 has been received from the petitioner, but the petitioner did not remit the required licence fee along with the application. It is pointed out that the delay in the matter occurred in the light of the fact that the Corporation required a legal opinion in the matter in the light of the pendency of the rent control proceedings. It is further averred in paragraph (5) that the consent letter of the owner of the building is not required by the Corporation as alleged in the writ petition. The said application has not been rejected by the Corporation also. It is averred that action for renewal and transfer of licence will be taken without any delay. 5. The above averments will surely allay the apprehension of the petitioner as voiced in the writ petition. Actually no legal impediment has been shown by the respondent in renewing the licence also. Appropriate action will be taken on the application to transfer and renew the licence in the name of the petitioner and the same will be finalised within a W.P.(C). No.12712/2010 -:3:- period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment. The writ petition is disposed of as above. No costs. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) ms