IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 8TH JULY 2008 / 17TH ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 34620 of 2007(U) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ 1. MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, ALUVA MUNICIPALITY, ALUVA, PIN 683 101, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY. 2. SECRETARY, ALUVA MUNICIPALITY, ALUVA, PIN-683 101. BY ADV. SRI.V.M.KURIAN SRI.MATHEW B. KURIAN SRI.K.T.THOMAS SMT.TULASI PANICKER RESPONDENT: ------------- RELIANCE RETAIL LTD., CHANDRIKA BUILDING S.A.ROAD, VYTTILA, KOCHI-682 019, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER. BY ADV. SRI.A.KUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. -------------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) 34620 of 2007 -------------------------------------------------------- Dated: JULY 8, 2008 JUDGMENT The petitioner Municipality has filed this writ petition challenging Ext.P4, an order passed by the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions, allowing Appeal No.431 of 2007 filed by the respondent aggrieved by Ext.P1 resolution of the petitioner Municipality. 2. Briefly noted, the facts of the case are that the respondent had applied for licence under the D&O Rules and PFA Act. The application was considered by the Municipality and by Ext.P1 resolution the said application was resolved to be rejected. A perusal of Ext.P1 shows that the only reason for rejection is the apprehension expressed by the Aluva Merchants' Association, that if the respondent is granted licence, their entry will lead to closure of several smaller establishments and leading to unemployment to those employed in such shops. It was aggrieved by this resolution that the respondent filed the appeal before the Tribunal resulting in Ext.P4 allowing the appeal. In Ext.P4 order of the Tribunal, the so called public interest relied WP(C) 34620 of 2007 2 on by the Municipality in Ext.P1 for rejecting the application of the respondent has been dealt with in detail. On facts it was found that there is absolutely no public interest in rejecting the application and it was held that on the contrary the public interest is in favour of granting licences to the respondent. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it was for the Municipality to assess the public interest involved having regard to the facts of each case. Though this freedom of the Municipality cannot be challenged, still the question is whether, in rejecting the application of the respondent, public interest had been subserved. In my view, the answer has to be in the negative, as I see absolutely no justification to take a view different from that taken by the Tribunal in Ext.P4. 4. It is also noticed that on identical grounds, when licence to an applicant was rejected by the Kadungallur Grama Panchayat, that was challenged before this Court in WP(C) 14414/2008. By judgment dated 22nd May 2008, the resolution passed by the Panchayat was set aside by this Court and it was specifically held that public interest was in favour of granting licence to the applicant therein. That judgment rendered by this Court was confirmed by the Division Bench in W.A.No.1341/2008 filed by the Panchayat. Similarly, yet another order passed by the Paravur Municipality was set aside by the Tribunal and the WP(C) 34620 of 2007 3 said order was also confirmed by this court in the judgment in WP(C) 7431/2008. 5. Having regard to all these facts, I see absolutely no merit in the writ petition. The writ petition is only to be dismissed and I do so. 6. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondent that on the basis that they had a deemed licence, they had opened the shop and that on the strength of Ext.P1, the Municipality had locked the premises. It is also stated that although this court had not granted any stay in this writ petition, the Municipality has not so far removed the lock. On account of these reasons, respondent filed I.A.No.6938/2008 praying for a direction to open the lock and allow them to remove the perishable articles from their premises. In view of the dismissal of this writ petition, it is directed that the Municipality shall open the lock and allow the petitioner to remove the perishable articles. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE mt/-