IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 24TH JUNE 2008 / 3RD ASHADHA 1930 W.P(C).No. 17583 of 2008(R) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- C.MUHAMMED ALI, CHUNDAYIL HOUSE, PATTARLADAVI, PANAKKAD, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.S.MUHAMMED HANEEFF RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MALAPPURAM. 2. MALAPPURAM MUNICIPALITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MALAPPURAM. 3. SECRETARY, MALAPPURAM MUNICIPALITY, MALAPPURAM. 4. MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, MALAPPURAM MUNICIPALITY, MALAPPURAM. BY ADV. SRI. BABU S. NAIR, SC FOR R2 GOVT. PLEADER, SMT. K.R. DEEPA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P. (C) No. 17583 OF 2008 - R = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 24th June 2008 J U D G M E N T Petitioner submits that by Ext. P3, for the storage and sale of sand, he had applied to the 3rd respondent for a licence. His application was placed before the Council in its meeting held on 6.5.2008 and a decision to grant him licence was also taken as is seen from Ext.P6. He also would submit that by Ext. P7 the required fees for issue of licence was also levied. It is the common case of the parties that at that stage a letter was received from the District Collector and acting upon the said letter, without any notice to him, the 3rd respondent reviewed the decision to grant licence to the petitioner. This was communicated to him by Ext. P8 and that decision is under challenge. 2. I have heard the counsel for the petitioner and also the Standing Counsel who entered appearance on behalf of the Municipality. W.P.(C) No.17583 OF 2008 - 2 - 3. From the facts, it is clear that a decision to grant licence to the petitioner was taken by the Municipality as per Ext. P6. It was in pursuance to that decision payments due were also realised from the petitioner. If at that stage for any reason whatsoever the decision to grant licence is to be reviewed, fairness requires that the petitioner should have been put on notice on such proposal and the material on which such proposal was raised. This has not been done in this case. 4. Therefore, Ext. P8 without putting the petitioner on notice as above, cannot be sustained. Accordingly, Ext. P8 will stand quashed. If the Municipality is still desirous of reviewing Ext. P6 decision, the 3rd respondent shall issue notice to the petitioner disclosing him the material on the basis of which such proposal is mooted. After issuing notice and giving the petitioner an opportunity to submit his explanation, the 3rd respondent shall reconsider the matter and take a fresh decision. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE jan/-