IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 1ST SEPTEMBER 2008 / 10TH BHADRA 1930 WP(C).No. 26234 of 2008(W) ----------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ---------------------- P.T. RAMAR, AGED 42 YEARS, S/O THIRUKODI NADAR, SELVI VESSELS, PARVATHIPURAM GRAMOM, ATTINGAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.S.D.ASOKAN RESPONDENTS: -------------------------- 1. ATTINGAL MUNICIPALITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL OFICE, ATTINGAL. 2. RIJU MUKUNDAN, S/O MUKUNDAN, THEVARUTHOPPU VEEDU, NEAR T.B JUNCTION, ATTINGAL. 3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY SMT.M.HEMALATHA, SC – R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/09/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss ANTONY DOMINIC, J ----------------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.26234/2008 ----------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 1st day of September, 2008 JUDGMENT Heard both sides. Petitioner is the tenant of a building of which the second respondent is the present land lord. The second respondent had filed a writ petition before this court as WP (c).No.16332/2008. At the admission stage, an interim order against the renewal of the licence of the petitioner, for which he had made an application in March, 2008 was obtained by the second respondent. It is stated by the counsel for the Municipality that in deference to the said order the Municipality had issued Ext.P6 to the petitioner requiring him to close down the shop. 2. Against Ext.P4 order petitioner filed Ext.P7 appeal which is now pending. In the meantime, the writ petition WP(c).No.26234/2008 2 was disposed of by Ext.P8 judgment recording the submission of the Standing Counsel for the Municipality that they had decided not to renew the licence and directing that if the petitioner is aggrieved by that decision, it is up to him to pursue his remedies. Subsequently, he has been issued Ext.P9 requiring him to remove the articles from the shop and threatening that in the event of non compliance Municipality will be forced to remove such articles at his risk and costs. 3. The counsel for the petitioner relies on the judgment reported in Marimuthu v. Director General of Police (1999(3)KLT 662) to contend that consent of the landlord is not necessary for renewal of the licence. I do not think that in this proceedings I should pronounce on the correctness or otherwise of this contention, which in any case is a matter for the Municipality to consider. 4. As already noticed, the decision of the Municipality not to renew the licence even according to them was on WP(c).No.26234/2008 3 account of the interim order passed by this court in the writ petition mentioned above. Now that the writ petition itself has been disposed of by Ext.P8 judgment, the interim order stands vacated automatically and therefore the decision of the Municipality cannot have any effect. 5. Since the Municipality now submits that it is only on account of the interim order that they have passed a resolution which is mentioned in the judgment, I do not think that there is any justification for such a decision. It was up to the Municipality to have decided the matter on merit and this was not been done. 6. In my view, this is a fit case where Municipality shall reconsider the matter, taking into account the application for renewal submitted by the petitioner. This the Municipality shall do as expeditiously as possible, and at any rate within 4 weeks from today. Necessarily, the 2nd respondent who now owns the building shall also be given notice. It is directed that until a decision has taken as WP(c).No.26234/2008 4 above, further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P9 will be kept in abeyance. Writ Petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE vi. WP(c).No.26234/2008 5