IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE TUESDAY, THE 18TH MARCH 2008 / 28TH PHALGUNA 1929 WP(C).No. 9229 of 2008(W) ------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- JAMES THOMAS, AGED 46 YEARS S/O JAMES, VADAKKETHIL HOUSE NANDUVAKADU MURI PATHANAMTHITTA ( PROPRIETOR AND MANAGER AKHILA HOTEL, OPPOSITE ADOOR MUNICIPALITY ADOOR) BY ADV. SRI. K.SHAJ SRI.B.BALRAJ SRI.SAJJU.S RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. ADOOR MUNICIPALITY REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, ADOOR, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT 2. PHILIP, ABOUT 55 YEARS, KONNAYIL HOUSE KARUVATTA MURI, PERINGANADU VILLAGE 3. LUCY SEBASTIAN, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS OF DO. ADDRESS THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(c).No. 9229 OF 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 18th day of March, 2008 JUDGMENT The grievance which the petitioner is voicing is that the local authority namely the Adoor Municipality is illegally insisting for production of consent from the landlord of the building where the business is carried on by the petitioner for considering the request for licence. According to the petitioner, the local Munsiff's court has passed an interim order restraining the landlord from interfering in any manner with the peaceful conduct of the business by the petitioner in the building in question. The petitioner relies on the judgment of a Division Bench of this court in Marimuthu v. Director General of Police ( 1999(3)KLT 662) in support of the proposition that the consent of the landlord is not necessary when the licensee applies for renewal of a licence which had been originally granted on the basis of the consent from the landlord. I do not propose to decide the issue finally. Exts.P5 and P6 licence applications are pending with the Municipality. The Municipality is directed to take up Exts.P5 and P6 immediately, consider the same in the WPC.No.9229/08 2 light of Ext.P8 [ the principles laid down by this court in Marimuthu v. Director General of Police ( 1999(3)KLT 662)] and pass orders on Exts.P5 and P6 at the earliest and at any rate within three weeks of receiving a copy of this judgment. If on any reason the Municipality is not inclined to allow the licence application, the Municipality will issue hearing notice to the petitioner and pass orders only after hearing the petitioner also. PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE JUDGE sv. WPC.No.9229/08 2