IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE MONDAY, THE 31ST MARCH 2008 / 11TH CHAITHRA 1930 WP(C).No. 7282 of 2008(P) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ SPENCER'S RETAIL LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE 30/286, PANICKER FOUNDATION, PETTA JUNCTION TRIPUNITHURA, KOCHI-682 038 REPRESENTED BY ITS BUSINESS HEAD-KERALA, RAJU MENON AGED 44 YEARS, SON OF LATE M.R.NAIR. BY ADV. SRI.H.B.SHENOY SRI.B.ASHOK SHENOY SRI.THOMAS P.MAKIL SMT.LAKSHMI B.SHENOY SRI.ABU MATHEW SRI.SOBHAN GEORGE RESPONDENTS: ------------- CORPORATION OF KOCHI REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PARK AVENUE, ERNAKULAM KOCHI-682 011. BY ADV. SMT.M.K.PUSHPALATHA,SC,COCHIN CORPORATION THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, J. ---------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO. 7282 of 2008 ---------------------------------- Dated this the 31st day of March , 2008 JUDGMENT A statement has been filed by the Corporation reporting that the application submitted by the petitioner for licence has been rejected by the Corporation. Annexure R1 produced along with that statement is a copy of the resolution of the Corporation's Council dated 13.7.2007 by which it is decided that licence need not be issued for Reliance and such other monopolistic institutions. Ext.R1(a) is a note issued by the Mayor of the Corporation to the Health Officer directing the Health Officer to take appropriate action on the basis of Ext.R1 decision on the licence applications received by the Corporation from the monopolistic institutions. 2. Heard both sides. Smt.Lakshmi.B.Shenoy drew my attention to my own judgment in W.P.(C) No.28651/2007. Under that judgment I had directed the Corporation to communicate to the petitioner(the same petitioner) formal order of rejection on WPC No.7282/2008 2 the licence application, which was subject matter of that case, within a time frame and permitted the petitioner to pursue statutory remedy against the order of rejection. Smt.Lakshmi submitted that pursuant to that judgment, appeal was preferred to the Tribunal against the rejection order and the Tribunal allowed the appeal and that licence has now been issued by the Corporation on the basis of the Tribunal's order. Though the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner were persuasive , I am of the view that it is not proper to straight away direct issuance of licence on the basis of the decision taken by the Tribunal. I dispose of this writ petition directing the respondent to communicate to the petitioner the order rejecting the petitioner's application for licence forthwith i.e. within seven days of the petitioner placing a copy of this judgment before the Corporation so as to enable the petitioner to challenge such order before the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE dpk WPC No.7282/2008 3