IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE FRIDAY, THE 14TH MARCH 2008 / 24TH PHALGUNA 1929 WP(C).No. 8370 of 2008(U) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ GEORGE, AGED 43 YEARS, S/O.Y.MATHAI, MAMMOOTTIL HOUSE, CHERUVALLOOR MURI, CHERIYANADU VILLAGE, CHENGANNUR. BY ADV. SRI.A.SHAFEEK RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE CHENGANNUR MUNICIPALITY REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, CHENGANNUR MUNICIPALITY. 2. THE SECRETARY, CHENGANNUR MUNICIPALITY, CHENGANNUR. 3. ALEYAMMA JOHN, W/O.PERUMAL JOHN, KALEEKALPADI, PUTHEN VEETTIL GRACE BHAVAN, ANGADICKAL THEKKUM MURI, CHENGANNUR VILLAGE, CHENGANNUR. BY ADV. SRI.S.HARIKRISHNAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(c).No.8370 OF 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 14th day of March, 2008 JUDGMENT Sri.C.Harikrishnan has taken notice on behalf of the first respondent Municipality and I have heard him also apart from hearing Sri.A.Shafeek, counsel for the petitioner. In the nature of the orders which are being passed, in my opinion it is not necessary that notice should go to the party respondents before the writ petition is disposed of. The grievance of the petitioner is that at the behest of the third respondent, who is the landlord of the room where the petitioner is carrying on his business for quite some time, the Municipality has issued Ext.P3 memo requesting the petitioner to produce the lease agreement which he has executed with the third respondent landlord as a condition for considering his licence application. According to the petitioner he has obtained Ext.P2 injunction order passed by the local civil court in his favour whereby the third respondent is restrained from evicting him forcefully from the room in question and from interfering WPC.No.8370/08 2 with his peaceful conduct of business in the room. It is to circumvent with Ext.P2 that third respondent prevailed upon the second respondent and the second respondent issued Ext.P3. 2. Sri.C.Harikrishnan submits that this court has directed the Secretary of the Municipality in W.P.(C)No.6581/08 that before deciding any application for licence or renewal of licence, the third respondent should be heard. This court according to him has directed the Municipality to consider third respondent's representation also along with licence application if any submitted by the petitioner herein. The counsel for the petitioner draws my attention to the judgment of a Division Bench of this court in Marimuthu v. Director General of Police ( 1999(3)KLT 662) and the unreported decision in W.P.(C) No.31522/02 dated 09/01/2004 and submit that the insistence of local authorities that written consent from the landlord should be produced even for renewal of earlier licences is not justified. Consent of the landlord is necessary only when licence is applied for the first time. I am sure that if the decisions of this court are cited before the second respondent, the second respondent will follow those decisions. WPC.No.8370/08 3 I dispose of the writ petition directing the second respondent to take an early decision on Ext.P5 application in the light of the judgment in W.P.(C)No.6581/08 after hearing the petitioner and the third respondent. While taking decision, the second respondent shall have due regard to the judgment of this court in Marimuthu's case as well as the unreported decision in W.P.(C)No.31522/03 dated 09/01/2004. Decision at any rate shall be taken within one month of receiving a copy of this judgment. Till then, the Municipality shall not in any way interfere with the conduct of business by the petitioner in the shop in question. Petitioner is directed to send a copy of this judgment by registered post acknowledgment due to the third respondent as soon as he receives the same. PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE JUDGE sv. WPC.No.8370/08 4