IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 12TH MARCH 2010 / 21ST PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 8299 of 2010(J) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- M.V.THOMAS, AGED 62 YEARS, S/O.M.T.VARGHESE, MALIAKEL HOUSE, VADAVATHOOR P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.JOBI JOSE KONDODY RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE KOTTAYAM MUNICIPALITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL OFFICE, KOTTAYAM. 2. THE SECRETARY, KOTTAYAM MUNICIPALITY, MUNICIPAL OFFICE, KOTTAYAM. 3. THE HEALTH OFFICER, KOTTAYAM MUNICIPALITY, MUNICIPAL OFFICE, KOTTAYAM. ADV. SRI.SIBY MATHEW FOR R1 & 2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------ WP(C) No. 8299 of 2010 -------------------------- Dated, this the 12th day of March, 2010 J U D G M E N T Heard the counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the Municipality. 2. Petitioner's father was the licensee of a hotel by name 'Mareena Hotel' at Kanjikuzhi in Kottayam District. The licence granted was renewed as is valid till 31.3.2010. In the meanwhile, petitioner's father expired on 28.7.2009 and by Ext.P6 dated 7.1.2010, petitioner sought transfer of the licence in his favour. That was replied by Ext.P7 whereby respondents 2 and 3 required the petitioner to produce legal heir ship certificate and consent from the landlord. Thereafter, petitioner submitted Ext.P8 on 4.3.2010, requesting for renewal of the licence also. Orders have not been passed on Exts.P6 and P8 and in the meantime, petitioner has been asked to close down the hotel. In these circumstances, the writ petition is filed. 3. The first objection raised by the petitioner is against the requirement specified in Ext.P7 for production of consent letter W.P.(C).8299/10 2 from the landlord. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, ordinarily if an application for transfer of licence is made, consent of the landlord is required. But however, when it comes to an application made by a legal heir, Section 492(4) makes a departure from the aforesaid general requirement and there is no requirement for producing consent from the landlord. For that reason, I am inclined to take the view that Exts.P7 and P9 to the extent it calls upon the petitioner to produce consent letter from the landlord is illegal. However for renewal of licence, legal heir ship certificate is required to be produced and that direction has to be complied with by the petitioner. 4. In these circumstances, I dispose of this writ petition directing that if the petitioner produces legal heir ship certificate within three weeks, 2nd respondent will consider Exts.P6 ad P8 applications made by the petitioner for transfer and renewal of the licence and order shall be passed within four weeks. It is directed that, in the meanwhile, implementation of Exts.P7 and P9 will be kept in abeyance. ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge mrcs