IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 11TH JULY 2008 / 20TH ASHADHA 1930 W.P(C).No. 16427 of 2008(E) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------- SPENCER'S RETAIL LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE 30,/286, PANICKER FOUNDATION, PETTA JUNCTION, TRIPUNITHURA, KOCHI-682 038 REP. BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER KERALA.K.SREEKANTH, AGED 37 YEARS, S/O.A.KUMAR. BY ADV. SRI.H.B.SHENOY SRI.B.ASHOK SHENOY SRI.THOMAS P.MAKIL SMT.LAKSHMI B.SHENOY SRI.ABU MATHEW SRI.SOBHAN GEORGE RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. VADAKARA MUNICIPALITY, REP. BY ITS SECRE TARY, VADAKARA, VADAKARA PO., 673101, KOZHIKODE 2. THE SECRETARY VADAKARA MUNICIPALITY, VAD AKARA PO., 6732101, KOZHIKODE. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC 16427/2008(E) A P P E N D I X PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR TRADE LICENCE DATED 215.08.2007 SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER FOR RESPONDENTS EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR LICENCE TO SELL, STOCK AND EXHIBIT FOR SALE AND DISTRIBUTE FOOD, DATED 25.8.2007 SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER TO RESPONDENTS. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE NO.H2-14233/07 DATED 25.9.2007 ISSUED TOTHE PETITIONER BY 2ND RESPONDENT EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE NO.H2-14233/07 DATED 3.11.2007 ISSUED TOTHE PETITIONER BY 2ND RESPONDENT EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 11.2.2008 PASSED BY TRIBUNAL FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM IN REVISION PETITION NO. 117/2007 EXT.P6: TRUE COPY OF THE ORER DATED 27.03.2008 PASSED BY THIS HONOURABLE COURT IN WP(C) NO.9005/2008 EXT.P7: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 27.3.2008 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN W.P.(C) NO.9005/2008 EXT.P8: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.H2-14233/07 DATED 30.04.2008 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY 2ND RESPONDENT // T R U E C O P Y // PA TO JUDGE RP/- ANTONY DOMINIC, J. =============== W.P.(C) NO. 16427 OF 2008 E ==================== Dated this the 11th day of July, 2008 J U D G M E N T Ext.P8 order passed by the 2nd respondent Secretary of the 1st respondent Municipality is under challenge. 2. Petitioner is a company which had applied for a licence to carry on business of sale on retail basis. On receipt of Exts. P1 and P2 applications, the 2nd respondent considered the same and passed Ext.P3 order rejecting the applications. The reason stated in Ext.P3 is that several organizations had objected to the entry of multi nationals into retail sector. 3. Against Ext.P3, an appeal filed before the Municipal Council was rejected by Ext.P4 confirming Ext.P3 order. Petitioner filed a revision before the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions as Revision Petition No.117/07. By Ext.P5 order, Tribunal allowed the revision and held that the reason stated in Exts. P3 and P4 are not traceable to any of of the provisions contained in the Municipalities Act. On that basis, after setting aside the impugned orders, the Secretary was directed to pass fresh orders in the matter. 4. Complaining that in pursuance to Ext.P5, orders were not WPC 16427/08 :2 : passed by the Secretary, petitioner approached this Court and filed WP(C) No.9005/08. In that writ petition Ext.P6 interim order dated 27th of March, 2008 was passed directing that orders shall be passed on the applications in the light of the order passed by the Tribunal. In the light of the aforesaid order, writ petition was also disposed of by Ext.P7 judgment. 5. Despite all this, Ext.P8 revised orders have been passed by the 2nd respondent, reiterating the very same reasons, which were initially stated by him in Ext.P3, that complaints were received against the entry of multi nationals into the retail sector. It is challenging Ext.P8, the writ petition has been filed. 6. To say the least, the attitude adopted by the 2nd respondent in Ext.P8 is, if not contempt, is utter disobedience of the orders passed by the Tribunal and this court in Exts. P5, P6 and P7. Despite the positive direction in Ext.P6 that orders shall be passed by the 2nd respondent in the light of Ext.P5 appellate order, deliberately the Secretary has chosen to ignore the appellate order. This attitude cannot be tolerated and needs to WPC 16427/08 :3 : be condemned. 7. Therefore, Ext.P8 will stand quashed and the 2nd respondent is directed to issue license as sought for by the petitioner in Exts. P1 and P2. This shall be done, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within 2 weeks of production of a copy of this judgment. 8. Though this case deserves imposition of costs personally on the 2nd respondent, I am restraining myself from passing such an order. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp