IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD SEPTEMBER 2008 / 12TH BHADRA 1930 WP(C).No. 26613 of 2008(R) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ K. NANDINI KISHORE, D/o. S. KRISHNANKUTTY NAIR, AGED 52 YEARS, PROPRIETRIX, M/S. ASHWATHI ENTERPRISES, PEROORKADA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM RESIDING AT D1, 'REVATHY'. BELGAVEN GARDENS, KOWDIAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.K.T.SHYAMKUMAR RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE CORPORATION OF THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, CORPORATION OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE HEALTH OFFICER, CORPORATION OF THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY S.C. MR. P.K. MANOJKUMAR. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C) No. 26613 OF 2008 R = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 3rd day of September 2008 J U D G M E N T The writ petition concerns the Ashwathi Kallyana Mandapam and the petitioner submits that she is the proprietrix of the same. Initially the Kalyana Mandapam was owned by a partnership firm and the petitioner's father was the Managing Partner, who was looking after the affairs of the Kalyana Mandapam. After prolonged illness, her father expired on 1.4.2008 and since then the Kalyana Mandapam is in her proprietorship. 2. Petitioner submits that subsequently the Corporation issued Ext. P4 notice stating that the petitioner had not obtained licence in respect of the Kalyana Mandapam for the period from 2007-08 and 2008-09. Thereupon, she gave Ext. P5 reply, informing that it was her father who was looking after the affairs of the Kalyana Mandapam and that on account of his ailments he would have W.P.(C) No. 26613 OF 2008 -2- overlooked compliance with these requirements. Though the petitoner made request that licence be issued in her favour, the Corporation declined to accept her prayer on the ground that the petitioner had not enclosed the legal heirship certificate. 3. Thereupon the petitioner applied for a legal heirship certificate to the Taluk Office, Thiruvananthapuram on 15.8.2008 and according to her the same is under enquiry. In response to Ext. P6 letter that she got from the Corporation, petitioner by Ext. P7 informed them that it will take at least 3 months time to obtain the legal heirship certificate and that it being the Kalyana Mandapam which is already booked by several customers no coercive action be initiated in the meanwhile. 4. At this stage this writ petition is filed, as the petitioner is apprehending that on the ground that she has not obtained licence from the Corporation, the Corporation might take coercive action resulting in the closure of the Kalyana Mandapam. 5. I heard the Standing Counsel for the Corporation also. He points out that it was the mandatory requirement of the Act that the W.P.(C) No. 26613 OF 2008 -3- petitioner should have obtained licence and therefore there is a clear default committed by her attracting the consequences thereon. 6. Counsel is justified in pointing out that there is a default on the part of the petitioner and I am inclined to agree with him. But the fact remains that the petitioner has a plausible explanation for this default and all that she seeks is that coercive action be deferred for 3 months period so that she can obtain necessary legal heirship certificate and produce the same and thus regularise the irregularity committed. I think this request made by the petitioner is a reasonable one particularly for the reason that the Kalyana Mandapam in question has already been booked by several clients, according to the petitioner. 7. The petitioner shall immediately submit an application accompanied by necessary fee and that within 3 months from today she should also produce necessary legal heirship certificate and thereupon the application shall be considered and orders will be passed by the Corporation. It is directed that in the meanwhile, the Corporation shall not take any coercive action against the Kalyana W.P.(C) No. 26613 OF 2008 -4- Mandapam in question. 8. It is clarified that this order will remain in force for a period of 3 months from today and in case the petitioner commits default in complying with the above directions, it will be open to the Corporation to proceed against the Kalyana Mandapam on expiry of the 3 months in accordance with law. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE jan/-