IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 20TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 29TH KARTHIKA 1930 WP(C).No. 34235 of 2008(A) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. SATYADEVAN, P.O, KIZHAKKUMURI, KIZHAKKUMURI VILLAGE-DESOM, THRISSUR TALUK. 2. VANAJA, P.O.KIZHAKKUMURI, KIZHAKKUMURI VILLAGE-DESOM, THRISSUR TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.M.R.NANDAKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. CORPORATION OF THRISSUR, THRISSUR, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. KRISHNAKUMAR, P.O.,KIZHAKKUMURI, KIZHAKKUMURI VILLAGE-DESOM, THRISSUR TALUK. 3. VANAJOLSANA, P.O, KIZHAKKUMURI, KIZHAKKUMURI VILLAGE-DESOM, THRISSUR TALUK. SHRI.K.B.MOHANDAS, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P(C).No.34235 of 2008 ================== Dated this the 20th day of November, 2008 J U D G M E N T The petitioners claim to be owners of a cinema theatre. They had a licence for running the cinema theatre issued by the 1st respondent. They renovated the theatre and applied for renewal of the licence, by Ext.P5 application. The petitioners complain that the application is not being considered by the 1st respondent. 2. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Corporation submits that there is a dispute as to the ownership of the cinema theatre and that prevents the 1st respondent from considering the application for renewal. 3. I am of opinion that when a person files an application for renewal of an existing licence, the 1st respondent has a duty to consider and pass orders on the same in accordance with law expeditiously. In the above circumstances, I dispose of this writ petition with a direction the 1st respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P5 as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy w.p.c.34235/08 2 of this judgment, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioners and, respondents 2 and 3. It would be open to the petitioners to rely on Ext.P6 ownership certificate or any other documents in support of their case and the 1st respondent, while considering Ext.P5, shall see whether Ext.P6 is applicable to the case. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge