IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 15TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 24TH BHADRA 1931 WP(C).No. 10171 of 2009(N) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ MOHAMMED SALI.M., AGED 52 YEARS, S/O.LATE K.HYDROSE KUNJU, SULEKHA MANZIL, KRISHNAPURAM P.O., ALAPPUZHA, REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, A. SAIDU KUNJU, AGED 57 YEARS, S/O.LATE K.HYDROSE KUNJU, MIDHIL COTTAGE, KRISHNAPURAM P.O., ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. MR.B.HARISH KUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. KRISHNAPURAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, KRISHNAPURAM P.O., ALAPPUZHA. 2. KRISHNAPURAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH COMMITTEE, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT, KRISHNAPURAM P.O., ALAPPUZHA. 3. SUSEELA DEVI, RIJOOS KAVANAL HOUSE, SOUTH KOCHUMURI, KRISHNAPURAM VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA. 4. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATH, ALAPPUZHA. 5. THE TRIBUNAL FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 BY ADVS.MR.VINCENT JOSEPH, MR.A.V.CHARLES. R3 BY ADVS.MR.R.RAJASEKHARAN PILLAI, SMT.SABINA JAYAN. R4 & R5 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. V. MANU THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.10171/2009 N APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE POWER OF ATTORNEY DEED DTD. 17/07/07. P2: COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT OF THE PROPERTY OF THE PETITIONER. P3: COPY OF THE JDUGMENT IN S.A.NO.339/1984 DTD.22/12/1989. P4: COPY OF THE NOTICE DTD. 18/07/07 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. P5: COPY OF THE REPLY TO NOTICE DTD. 26/07/07 SUBMITTED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. P6: COPY OF THE PROCEEDING DTD. 22/07/08 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT. P7: COPY OF THE NOTICE DTD. 13/11/07 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. P8: COPY OF THE APPLICATION DTD. 19/03/08 SUBMITTED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. P9: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD. 31/03/08 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT. P10: COPY OF THE LICENSE DTD. 19/12/05 ISSUED TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT. P11: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 8/08/08 PASSED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT. P12: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD. 3/09/08 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT. P13: COPY OF THE RESOLUTION DTD. 25/11/08 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT PANCHAYATH. P14: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 16/03/09 PASSED BY THE FIFTH RESPONDENT. P15: COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT DTD.27/11/07 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: R3A: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 24/08/2007 IN I.A.NO.1768/07 IN O.S.261/2007 OF THE MUNSIFF KAYAMKULAM. R3B: COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR LICENSE SUBMITTED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO JUDGE Kss THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C).No.10171 of 2009-N = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 15th day of September, 2009. JUDGMENT 1.The petitioner, the owner of a building challenges Ext.P10 licence issued by the panchayat way back on 19.12.2005 to the third respondent, a woman who is carrying on a stationery shop in a building, on the strength of licence. It appears that the petitioner is a subsequent transferee of the title to that building. He and the third respondent have litigations pending before civil court. 2.As the third respondent faced a situation of refusal to renew licence, she moved the Tribunal for LSGIs and obtained the impugned Ext.P14 order holding that she was entitled to renewal of licence and the consent of the owner of the building is not required. This is under WPC10171/09 -: 2 :- challenge. 3.The fundamental plea of the petitioner is that the municipal authority did not have the power to grant licence continuously for three years in one go, having regard to the terms of Section 236 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act. He accordingly, impugns the issuance of Ext.P10. 4.With the materials, it needs to be assessed whether there is a case of injustice, rather than apparent illegality because, in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226, this Court is not to wipe off every illegality that is shown, but would step only in, to take the parties to the legitimate course of justice. In that view of the matter, unless the situation in hand demonstrates injustice, this Court would not strike down Ext.P10 licence. 5.As already noted, that licence was granted way back in 2005. The petitioner was nowhere in the WPC10171/09 -: 3 :- scene and had nothing to do with the building then. He became its owner only in 2007. 6.As of now, the third respondent is running an activity for her livelihood. The civil court will have to decide issues pending before it. It is also the law that a person in occupation or possession shall not be dispossessed except in accordance with law. I say this in the context of the fact that it seems to this Court that there are, apparently, attempts in different cases, to use provisions under the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994 by refusing licence even in relation to tenants who would get the protection of Act 2/1965. The Tribunal has adverted to and considered the materials and has come to the reasonable conclusion to hold that the third respondent is entitled to renewal of licence. The continued occupation of the third respondent can be disturbed by the title holder only in accordance with law and not otherwise. WPC10171/09 -: 4 :- 7.Having regard to what is aforesaid, I do not find any legal infirmity or error of jurisdiction in the impugned proceedings or the licence issued. Ext.P14 stands. In the result, this writ petition fails. The same is accordingly dismissed. No costs. THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. Sha/220909