A Ziyad S/o Abdul Rahman v. L.S. Deepa

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: P.B.SURESH KUMAR
Judgment Date: 2018-01-31
Court Decision / Holding: The contempt proceedings are closed. The court notes compliance with the directions and, without prejudice to the writ petitioner’s right to challenge Annexure R3, allows the petitioner to remove movable property; the court records that the matter has been resolved to the extent of closing the contempt case while reserving the petitioner’s rights under law.
Final Disposition: Contempt case closed; writ petitioner’s rights preserved; Annexure R3 may be challenged in due course.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

A Ziyad s/o Abdul Rahman

Respondents

L.S. Deepa

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Smt. M.A. Zohra
• Sri. B. Sathiq

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri N. Nandakumara Menon, Senior Advocate
• Sri P.K. Manojkumar, SC

Case Synopsis & Summary

This Contempt of Court case arises from WP(C) 34218/2017, in which A. Ziyad S/O Abdul Rahman challenged the Thiruvananthapuram Corporation for willful non‑compliance with the court’s directions. The writ petition had directed the Corporation to act on a complaint about the petitioner operating a shop without a licence, after affording him an opportunity of hearing. The court directed fresh orders after hearing and in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Sudhakaran v. Corporation of Thiruvananthapuram. The Corporation maintained that it had complied: an opportunity of hearing was provided (24 November 2017), and Annexure R3 recorded that the shop, found to be without a licence, should be closed; the petitioner is said not to hold a licence. On licence applications, the Corporation cited a legal opinion that landlord consent is required for the initial licence, while renewal may not require it; the petitioner disputed this opinion. Annexure R3 also granted permission to remove movable property. The judge concluded that the directions were complied with and, while reserving the petitioner’s right to challenge Annexure R3, closed the contempt case, noting that the relief was limited to ensuring due process and compliance with the court’s order. The decision emphasizes compliance and due process in administrative action.

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Willful disobedience / non-compliance of directions
Audi alteram partem (right to hearing)
Natural justice principles

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner contends that the direction to grant hearing was not complied with; that the closure of the shop without hearing amounts to willful disobedience; the legal opinion relied by the Corporation is contested as incorrect and the petitioner seeks a licence; he asserts noncompliance with the court's directions.

Contentions of Respondents

The Corporation contends that the directions have been complied with; a hearing was held on 24 November 2017; Annexure R3 records the shop’s closure for lacking a licence; the initial licensing issue is addressed by the legal opinion cited by the Corporation, and the petitioner's licence application, if any, is to be considered in light of the Apex Court’s decision referenced in the judgment.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Sudhakaran v. Corporation of Thiruvananthapuram	2016 (3) KLT 247 (SC)	Positive	Cited to guide the decision and interpret licensing requirements; the judgment is referred to as the apex framework for evaluating the matter.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

**IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** **PRESENT:** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR** **WEDNESDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF JANUARY 2018 / 11TH MAGHA, 1939** **Con.Case(C).No. 2234 of 2017** **---------------------------WP(C) 34218/2017 of THIS HONOURABLE COURT** **-----------** **PETITIONER/PETITIONER :** **---------------------** **A ZIYAD S/O ABDUL RAHMAN, TC 48/484(7), 'RAYYAN', KALLATTUMUKKU, MANACAUD P.O. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 009** **BY ADVS.SMT.M.A.ZOHRA SRI.B.SATHIQ** **RESPONDENT/1ST RESPONDENT : -------------------------** **SMT.L.S.DEEPA AGED 37 YEARS, W/O A.T. BABU PAUL, SECRETARY THIRUVANANTHAPURAM CORPORATION, MUNICIPAL CORPORATION BUILDINGS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 003** **BY SRI.N.NANDAKUMARA MENON SENIOR ADVOCATE BY ADV. SRI.P.K.MANOJKUMAR,SC,** **THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 31-01-2018,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **bp** **Con.Case(C).No. 2234 of 2017** **----------------------** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES :** ## **----------------------** - **ANNEXURE A: COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT DATED 7/11/2017 IN WPC NO. 34218 OF 2017 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT.** - **ANNEXURE B: COPY OF THE COVERING LETTER DATED 17/11/2017 WITH THE JUDGEMENT MENTIONED IN ANNEXURE A.** - **ANNEXURE C: COPY OF THE ARGUMENT NOTE SUBMITTED ON 28/11/2017 AT THE HEARING CONDUCTED BY R1.** - **ANNEXURE D: COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 8/12/2017 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE R1 WITH RECEIPT.** ## **RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES :** - **----------------------** - **ANNEXURE R(1): COPY OF THE HEARING NOTICE NO.H11/131398/16 DAT 24/11/2017 ISSUED BY THE HEALTH OFFICER, CORPORATION OF THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,TO THE PETITIONER.** - **ANNEXURE R(2): COPY OF THE HEARING NOTE NO.H11/131398/15 DATED 28/11/2017 SUBMITTED BY THE POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, SAFEER SAINALBDEEN, BEFORE THE SECRETARY, CORPORATION OF THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** - **ANNEXURE R(3): COPY OF THE ORDER NO.H11/131398/16 DATED 28/12/2017 ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY, CORPORATION OF THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, TO THE PETITIONER.** - **ANNEXURE R(4): COPY OF THE NOTE NO.H11/131398/16 DATED 10/11/2018 ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY, CORPORATION OF THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. //TRUE COPY//** **P.S. TO JUDGE** ## **bp** ## **P.B.SURESH KUMAR, J.** ## **-----------------------------------------------** ## **Cont. Case (C) No.2234 of 2017** ## **-----------------------------------------------** ## **Dated 31[st] January, 2018.** ## **J U D G M E N T** This contempt proceedings is instituted by the petitioner in W.P.(C).No.34218 of 2017 alleging willful noncompliance of the directions issued by this Court in terms of the judgment in the said case. 2. The petitioner was running a shop in a building within the limits of the Thiruvananthapuram Corporation (the Corporation). The said building is owned by the second respondent in the writ petition. The second respondent preferred a complaint before the Corporation alleging that the petitioner is running business in the shop without obtaining licence from the Corporation. The Corporation has not taken any action on the said complaint. The second respondent, in the circumstances, Con. case No.2234 of 2017 2 approached this Court by filing a writ petition and the said writ petition was disposed of by this Court directing the Corporation to take appropriate action on the complaint preferred by him, after affording the petitioner an opportunity of hearing. The case set up by the petitioner in the writ petition was that in purported compliance of the said direction issued by this Court, the shop of the petitioner has been closed down by the Corporation, without affording him an opportunity of hearing. This Court disposed of the writ petition directing the respondent, the Secretary of the Corporation, to pass fresh orders on the complaint lodged by the second respondent in the writ petition, after affording the petitioner and the second respondent an opportunity of hearing. This Court also directed the respondent to consider the application preferred by the petitioner for grant of licence, in the light of the decision of the Apex Court in **Sudhakaran v.** Con. case No.2234 of 2017 3 **Corporation of Thiruvananthapuram** [(2016 (3) KLT 247 (SC)). This Court further directed the respondent to permit the petitioner to remove the movables kept by him in the shop. As noted above, the petitioner alleges noncompliance of the said directions issued by this Court. 3. A statement has been filed by the respondent. The stand taken by the respondent in the statement is that the directions issued by this Court have been complied with. 4. It is seen that pursuant to the direction issued by this Court, the parties were afforded an opportunity of hearing by the respondent on 24/11/2017. The petitioner does not dispute the said fact. Annexure R3 is the order passed by the respondent after the hearing. As regards the compliant lodged by the second respondent in the writ petition, it is stated in Annexure R3 order that since the petitioner has started business in the premises Con. case No.2234 of 2017 4 without obtaining licence from the Corporation, the shop room is liable to be closed down. The petitioner has no case that he has obtained licence to conduct business in the shop in question. In so far as the petitioner has no case that he has obtained licence to conduct business in the shop room from the Corporation, the petitioner cannot be heard to contend that the decision of the Corporation that the petitioner is not entitled to conduct business in the shop room would amount to wilful disobedience of the direction issued by this Court. Of course, the petitioner is free to challenge the said decision in accordance with law. 5. Coming to the application preferred by the petitioner for licence, it is stated in Annexure R3 order that the Corporation has received legal advice to the effect that though consent of the landlord is not required at the time of renewal of the licence already issued to the tenant, consent is mandatory for obtaining the initial licence. The Con. case No.2234 of 2017 5 case of the petitioner in the contempt case as regards this point, in essence, is that the legal opinion received by the Corporation is incorrect. As noted above, this Court only directed the Corporation to consider the application preferred by the petitioner for licence in the light of the decision of the Apex Court referred to in the judgment. As mentioned earlier, the stand of the Corporation is that the petitioner is not entitled to licence in the light of the decision of the Apex Court mentioned in the judgment, in terms of the legal opinion received by the Corporation. The legal opinion received by the Corporation may or may not be correct. The petitioner has no case that the Corporation has not obtained a legal opinion as claimed in Annexure R3 order. In so far as the direction has been complied with on the basis of the legal opinion, the petitioner cannot be heard to contend that there is willful non-compliance of the direction issued by this Court. Con. case No.2234 of 2017 6 6. As regards the direction to permit the petitioner to remove his movables, it is seen that in terms of Annexure R3 order, the petitioner is granted permission to remove the movables. 7. In the aforesaid circumstances, I deem it appropriate to close the contempt case without prejudice to the right of the writ petitioner to challenge Annexure R3 order. Ordered accordingly. Sd/- **P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE.** tgs