IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 7TH OCTOBER 2009 / 15TH ASWINA 1931 WP(C).No. 28124 of 2009(I) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- RELIANCE FRESH LIMITE CHANDRIKA BUILDINGS,L S.A.ROADM VYTTILA, KOCHI REP. BY TS AUTHORISED SIGANATORY C.S.ANILKUMAR. BY ADV. SRI.A.KUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM CORPORATION COUNCIL REP. BY WORSHIPFUL MAYOR, CORPORATION OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE SECRETARY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM CORPORATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. By SENIOR ADV N NANDAKUMARA MENON THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J ........................................... WP(C).NO. 28124 OF 2009 ............................................ DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2009 JUDGMENT Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned senior counsel for the respondents. 2. The petitioner had trouble in establishing a retain outlet in Thiruvananthapuram. That came up to this court and resulted in an interlocutory order, whereby the petitioner continued its activity of retail vending on the basis of a deemed licence. With the passage of time, quite rightly, the petitioner sought for licence during the succeeding financial year. The application was taken up for consideration. The Secretary of the Corporation concluded that there was arrear in the property tax in relation the building in question in as much as the property tax receipt was not submitted along with the application and also that there is a deficit in the fee paid for licence. Accordingly, Ext.P3 was issued essentially concluding to reject the application. But, ultimately, the last sentence of Ext.P3 provided the petitioner an opportunity to show cause against a decision contained in Ext.P3. The Wpc 28124/2009 2 petitioner, therefore made Ext.P4 by rectifying the defects. Apparently, by way of abundant caution, it also filed appeal to the Council of the Corporation, since nothing turned down after submission of Ext.P4. Later, the Council refused to consider the petitioner's appeal on ground that it is out of time. Following that decision, further action has followed in the form of a notice, threatening distress action and prosecution, if the activity of the petitioner were to continue. 3. Having issued Ext.P3, by clearly stating that the petitioner is entitled to show cause against what is stated therein, the Corporation being a public authority, is duty bound to hear the petitioner when cause is shown. The petitioner having shown cause, immediately in the form of Ext.P4, the duty of the Secretary of the Corporation to hear the petitioner on that matter does not fizzle off merely because the petitioner, owing to non consideration of Ext.P4, went on to file a statutory appeal before the Council, which by the time had become time barred. Having noted two grounds of objection in Ext.P3 to the further consideration of the petitioner's application, it is abundantly clear that complete justice between the parties would require the Wpc 28124/2009 3 Secretary of the Corporation to consider Ext.P4 objections to Ext.P3 notwithstanding the refusal of the Council to entertain the appeal of the petitioner on grounds of delay. 4. For the aforesaid reasons, this writ petition is ordered directing that Secretary of the Corporation will take up Ext.P4, provide the petitioner an opportunity of personal hearing and decide on that matter without reference to the rejection of the appeal by the Council. In the interregnum, the impugned proceedings on the basis of Ext.P3 and P7 will stand stayed. The petitioner is directed to appear before the Secretary of the Corporation on 19th October, 2009 so that the Secretary can fix the date of hearing in terms of this judgment. All other issues on merits left open. THOTTATHIL B RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE lgk/8/10