IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 6TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 17TH MAGHA 1930 WP(C).No. 2252 of 2009(R) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- C.BABU, S/O.ANANDAN, AGED 31 YEARS TRADER, SAVITHRI BHAVAN, CHAVASSERI AMSOM ULIYIL DESOM, P.O.ULIYIL, THALASSERI TALUK. BY ADV. MR.K.V.PAVITHRAN ADV.MR. JAYANANDAN MADAYI PUTHIYAVEETTIL RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. SPECIAL GRADE SECRETARY, KEEZHUR CHAVASSERI GRAMA PANCHAYAT, P.O.PUNNAD, THALASSERI TALUK. 2. VELLUVA DEVAKI AMMA,D/O.PAITHAL NAMBIAR AGED 84 YEARS, NO OCCUPATION, GOVIND NIVAS CHAVASERI AMSOM, ULIYIL DESOM. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S. SIRI JAGAN, J. ------------------------------------ W.P.(C)No.2252 OF 2009 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 6th day of February, 2009 JUDGMENT The petitioner claims to have obtained a licence for conducting a stationery business in a rented building. He did not renew the licence for the year 2007-2008. He filed an application for licence for the year 2008-2009. By Ext.P10, the petitioner was informed that the petitioner's application for licence cannot be considered since the application was not accompanied by the consent from the landlord, which is a requirement for issuing a licence. It is also stated therein that no licence to conduct a stationery business was issued to the petitioner as per the records of the Panchayat and therefore, it cannot be considered as a renewal of licence also. The petitioner is now challenging Ext.P10 and seeking a direction to the Municipality to consider Ext.P9 application for licence submitted by the petitioner without insisting on the consent letter from the owner of the building. 2. I have considered the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner. The learned counsel himself admits W.P.(c)No.2252/09 2 that the application now submitted by petitioner is a fresh application and not a renewal application. In fact, I had directed him to produce the licence for the previous year, which the petitioner has not. All what he claims is that, as per Ext.P4, it is clear that he had applied for a stationery business earlier. Whatever that be, in so far as the petitioner does not dispute the fact that Ext.P9 is an application for a fresh licence and not a renewal, clearly, such application has to be accompanied by appropriate documents as provided under the Rules, which stipulate a consent letter from the landlord. Of course, the petitioner would contend that in view of a petition under the Kerala Building (Lease and Rent Control) Act between the owner of the building and the petitioner, the petitioner would not issue a consent letter. That is the petitioner's problem. As far as the Panchayat is concerned, under law, they can consider the application of the petitioner only if it is accompanied by the consent letter from the landlord. Therefore, I do not find any merit in this writ petition and accordingly, the same is dismissed. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE Acd W.P.(c)No.2252/09 3