IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 14TH JUNE 2011 / 24TH JYAISHTA 1933 WP(C).No. 10356 of 2011(T) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- K.V.HARIS, S/O.ABDULRAHIMAN, AGED 40 YEARS, KURIKKADA HOUSE, PUTHIYAPARAMBIL, MUZHAKKUNNU, VILAKODE P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.C.P.PEETHAMBARAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. PULPPALLY GRAMA PANCHAYATH, PULPPALLY P.O., WAYANAD DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, PIN- 673 121. 2. DAMODARAN.K., S/O.NARAYANAN, KUTHINAPPURATH HOUSE, VELLAKETTU, CHETTAPALAM P.O., PADICHIRA AMSOM DESOM, SULTHANBATHERY, WAYANAD, PIN - 673 121. ADV. SRI.V.RAJENDRAN (PERUMBAVOOR) FOR R2 SRI.GEORGE VARGHESE KIZHAKKAMBALAM FOR R2 S.C SRI.MANOJ RAMASWAMY FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 10356 of 2011(T) APPENDIX PETITIONER's EXHIBITS:- EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE KAIVASAPANAYA KARAR. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF LICENSE FEE RECEIPT FOR THE YEAR 2008-09 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 27.3.2010 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF RCP NO.11/2010 FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT BEFORE THE RENT CONTROLLER, SULTHANBATHERY. EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 9.6.2010 IN WP(C)NO.16945/2010 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. // TRUE COPY // TKS C.T.RAVIKUMAR, J. --------------------------------------- W.P(C)No.10356 of 2011 ---------------------------------------- Dated 14th June, 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioner who is a tenant under the second respondent filed this writ petition mainly with the prayer to issue a writ of mandamus commanding the first respondent to accept the appropriate application for issuing/renewing licence to the petitioner to conduct stationery business in room No.PP-5/689 (New No.6/354) of Pulppally Panchayat. The contention is that he had been conducting stationery shop in the said building since 1990 onwards. However, it is admitted that the application submitted by him for renewal of the licence was rejected by the first respondent as per Ext.P3 dated 27.3.2010. It is further contended that after about an year he again approached the first respondent with a request to grant/renew the licence. However, the first respondent is refusing to accept an application for the said purpose. It is in the said circumstances that this writ petition has been filed. 2. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned standing counsel for the first respondent and also the learned counsel for the second respondent. WP(C).No.10356/2011 2 3. Obviously, the application for renewal of licence submitted by the petitioner was rejected by the first respondent as per Ext.P3 order dated 27.3.2010. The petitioner has not challenged the same before any competent authority or court. There is no challenge against the same in this writ petition, as well. The contention of the petitioner is that after about an year since issuance of the said order of rejection he approached the first respondent for getting licence/renewal of the licence and the first respondent is refusing to accept the application. In view of the admitted facts obtained in this case, it is evident that the petitioner cannot approach the first respondent with a prayer to renew the licence. However, that shall not stand in the way of the petitioner to approach the first respondent with a prayer to grant licence, in accordance with law. In case the petitioner prefers such a petition the first respondent shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders thereon, in accordance with law. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. Sd/- C.T.RAVIKUMAR Judge TKS