K. Praseetha v. Ayancheri Grama Panchayat & Others

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS** **FRIDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF JUNE 2020 / 15TH JYAISHTA, 1942** ## **WP(C).No.11049 OF 2020(E)** ## **PETITIONER:** **K.PRASEETHA AGED 46 YEARS, D/O. KRISHNAN, SWARAGANGA, URALUNGAL MADAPPALLY COLLEGE (PO), VATAKARA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT-673 012.** **BY ADVS. SRI.M.PROMODH KUMAR, SMT.MAYA CHANDRAN** ## **RESPONDENTS:** - **1 MANIYOTH KUNHAMMED, AGED 75 YEARS, S/O. KUNCHIABDULLA, AYANCHERI (P.O), VATAKARA THALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT-673 541.** - **2 K.SOUDA, AGED NOT KNOWN, D/O. KUNHAMMED, PADINJARE, KOONTHINOTTU HOUSE, AYYENCHERI P.O., VADAKARA TALUK, KOZHIKKODE DISTRICT-673 541.** **3 MANIYOTH SAHEEDA AGED NOT KNOWN, D/O. KUNHAMMED, CHERULLA KANDIYIL, NITTOOR P.O., VADAKARA TALUK, KOZHIKKODE DISTRICT673 507.** - **4 HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD. REPRESENTED BY ITS REGIONAL MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE ELATHUR, KOZHIKKODE DISTRICT-673 303.** - **5 THE SECRETARY AYANCHERI GRAMA PANCHAYATH, KADAMERI P.O., VADAKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT-673 542.** ## **SRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR, SC FOR R4** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05.06.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** ALEXANDER THOMAS, J. --------------------------------------W.P. © No. 11049 of 2020 --------------------------------------Dated this the 5[th] day of June, 2020 ## J U D G M E N T The case set up in the above Writ Petition (Civil) is as follows: The petitioner is conducting a petroleum outlet in the land on the basis of Exhibit P-1 lease deed. Respondents 1 to 3 who are the owners of the property had taken a stand that the period of lease has been expired, contrary to the conditions specified in Exhibit P-1 that the lease period shall be extended for another 15 years on written request and also in the absence of any contravention or non-observance of the covenant of lease. The petitioner's application for renewal of the D & O license was rejected by the 5[th] respondent Panchayath stating that lease deed has been expired. This court as well as the Hon'ble Supreme court categorically held that the consent of landlord is not required for the purpose of renewal of trade license. Till date the petitioner is continuing possession of the premises and running the same business. The petitioner is aggrieved by the rejection of the request for renewal of trade license. It is in the light of these averments and contentions that the petitioner has filed the W.P. © No. 11049 of 2020 ..3.. ## instant Writ Petition (Civil) with the following prayers: “ - _a) To set side Exhibit P6 as it violates the fundamental right of the petitioner and principles of natural justice._ - _b) Issue a writ of mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the 5[th] respondent to renew the petitioner's D & O license for running her petroleum out let in Exhibit P1 property without insisting for a fresh lease deed._ - _c) Issue such other appropriate writs, orders or directions as this Hon'ble Court deems, fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. ”_ 2. Heard Sri.M.Pramodh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.M.Gopikrishnan Nambiar, learned counsel appearing for respondent 4. In the nature of the order proposed to be passed in this petition, notice to respondents 1 to 3 and 5 will stand dispensed with. 3. According to the petitioner, she has been using the land originally leased out from the 1[st] respondent for the purpose of running petroleum outlet for which she has been given dealership and license by the 4[th] respondent Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. That, she had duly obtained trade license to conduct the said business from the 5[th] respondent Ayancheri Grama Panchayat, in accordance with the provisions of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, and the Rules framed thereunder. The said W.P. © No. 11049 of 2020 ..4.. trade license was granted in favour of the petitioner by the 5[th] respondent for the first time in the year 2005. Thereafter, it has been renewed from time to time. Ownership of the leased land has been alienated by the 1[st] respondent in favour of respondents 2 & 3. The application of the petitioner for renewal of trade license has been rejected by the 5[th] respondent Secretary of Ayancheri Grama Panchayat as per impugned Ext.P-6 proceedings for the year 2020-2021, on the ground that the petitioner has not produced the fresh lease deed as executed between her and the lessors. The prime contention raised by the petitioner is that the petitioner has been initially granted trade license and it has been renewed from time to time since the year 2005, and therefore before taking an adverse decision as per Ext.P-6 for rejecting the plea for renewal of license, the 5[th] respondent should have afforded reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. Instead that the 5[th] respondent has not afforded any reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioner before the impugned decision at Ext.P-6 is taken, and therefore it is pointed out that the impugned order is liable for interdiction solely on the ground of blatant violation of natural justice and fairness. W.P. © No. 11049 of 2020 ..5.. 4. The counsel appearing for the petitioner has also submitted that State Government has recently issued G.O.(MS) No.836/2020/LSGD dated 13.5.2020 ordering that, in view of the crisis that has arisen out of the COVID-19 Pandemic, the dead line of 31.3.2020 for renewal of trade licenses by the municipal body/local self government bodies for the year 2020-2021 will stand extended upto 31.10.2020, as far as existing licenses are concerned. Further it is also contended that, it is well established by a series of rulings of the Apex Court and this Court in the cases as in _**Sudharan v. Corporation of Trivandrum**_ **[** _**AIR 2016 SC 3180]**_ **,** _**Marimuthu v. Director General of Police [1999 (3) KLT 662]** etc_ that, consent of the landlord of leased premises is required only when license is to be given by the Panchayat/Municipality for conducting trade in the leased premises for the first time, and at the stage of subsequent renewal of license by the local authority concerned, the consent of building owner cannot be insisted lawfully, etc. In this connection it is urged by the petitioner that, though there is specific clause in the lease deed for renewal of lease, the lessers have not renewed the lease, but that the petitioner is still in occupation and possession of W.P. © No. 11049 of 2020 ..6.. subject property, and he has not been interdicted by any court orders from occupation and possession of subject property, and that therefore the insistence by the 5[th] respondent that the petitioner should necessarily produce fresh lease deed etc, is legally untenable, especially as the request is only for trade license. 5. After hearing both sides this Court is of the considered view that, the impugned order at Ext.P-6 is liable for interdiction solely on the ground of blatant violation of principles of natural justice and fairness, inasmuch as the petitioner was not afforded a reasonable opportunity of being heard before an adverse decision in the nature of Ext.P-6 was taken. Moreover, the abovesaid contention of the petitioner made with reference to the dictum laid down by the Apex Court and the Division Bench of this Court etc, have not even be duly considered and adverted to by the 5[th] respondent while rendering the impugned order. For these reasons, the matter requires serious reconsideration at the hands of the 5[th] respondent and it would warrant a remit. For effectuating such a remit the impugned Ext.P-6 rejection order will stand set aside and quashed, and the application for renewal of trade license for the year 2020-2021, as referred to in Ext.P-5 letter will stand W.P. © No. 11049 of 2020 ..7.. remitted to the 5[th] respondent Secretary of Ayancheri Grama Panchayat for consideration and decision afresh. 6. The 5[th] respondent will immediately afford reasonable opportunity of being heard to both the petitioner as well as respondents 1 to 3, and then should pass orders on the application of the petitioner for renewal of trade license/D & O License for the year 2020-2021, without much delay preferably within a period of 3 weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this judgment. 7. The petitioner will forward a certified copy of this judgment along with copy of memorandum of this WP(C) with all exhibits to the 5[th] respondent for necessary information and further action. 8. Registry will forward certified copies of this judgment to respondents 1 to 3 at the cost of the petitioner. With these observations and directions, the above Writ Petition (Civil) will stand disposed of. Sd/- ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE MMG W.P. © No. 11049 of 2020 ..8.. ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1** **TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTERED LEASE DEED DATED 19.1.2005 EXECUTED BY THE IST RESPONDENT AND THE PETITIONER.** **EXHIBIT P2** **TRUE COPY OF THE SUB LEASE AGREEMENT EXECUTED BY THE PETITIONER AND THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 1.2.2005.** **EXHIBIT P3** **TRUE COPY OF THE D&O LICENSE DATED 5.5.2016 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.** **EXHIBIT P4** **TRUE COPY OF THE LAWYER NOTICE DATED 3.3.2020 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER.** **EXHIBIT P5** **TRUE COPY OF THE COVERING LETTER DATED 26.2.2020 ISSUED BY PETITIONER TO THE 5TH RESPONDENT.** **EXHIBIT P6** **TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED NIL ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.**