IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH MARCH 2010 / 3RD CHAITHRA 1932 WP(C).No. 9938 of 2010(N) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- A.SEETHARAMAN, HOTEL ARYAS, SAHODARAN AYYAPPAN ROAD, MANORAMA JUNCTION, ERNAKULAM-682 011. BY ADV. SRI.PHILIP T.VARGHESE SRI.THOMAS T.VARGHESE SMT.N.ASWATHY SMT.DIVYA KRISHNAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. CORPORATION OF KOCHI, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, CORPORATION OFFICE, ERNAKULAM-682 011. 2. THE HEALTH OFFICER, CORPORATION OF KOCHI, CORPORATION OFFICE, ERNAKULAM-682 011. SC SRI. S. RAMESH BABU THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J ------------------- W.P.(C).9938/2010 -------------------- Dated this the 24th day of March, 2010 JUDGMENT Petitioner is conducting hotel business with licence from the respondent Corporation. For the period 2010-11, he applied for renewal of the licence. Exts.P3 and P4 are the applications filed by the petitioner in this regard. He is informed by Ext.P5 that no final decision has been taken on the applications for the reason that the landlord has objected to the renewal of the licence and that legal opinion is awaited. It is challenging Ext.P5 the writ petition is filed. 2. Heard both sides. 3. As contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that for considering an application for renewal of licence, consent of the landlord is unnecessary and it has been so held by this Court in Marimuthu v. Director General of Police (1999 (3) KLT 662). Therefore the alleged objection of the landlord could not have stood in the way of the respondent in considering the application for renewal of the licence. W.P.(C).9938/10 2 4. In view of the above, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to pass final orders on Exts.P3 and P4 in accordance with law and as expeditiously as possible at any rate within four weeks of production of a copy of this judgment. It is made clear that until orders are passed as above, no coercive action shall be initiated against the petitioner for the reason that he does not possess any licence. ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge mrcs