KERALA VYAPARI VYAVASAYI EKOPANA SAMITHI MANJERI MUNICIPAL UNIT COMMITTEE v. MANJERI MUNICIPALITY AND ITS SECRETARY (MANJERI MUNICIPALITY)

# **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS** **THURSDAY, THE 05TH DAY OF MARCH 2020 / 15TH PHALGUNA, 1941** ## **WP(C).No.6619 OF 2020(B)** ## **PETITIONER:** **KERALA VYAPARI VYAVASAYI EKOPANA SAMITHI MANJERI MUNICIPAL UNIT COMMITTEE, VYPARA BHAVAN, COURT ROAD, MANJERI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY, K. NIVIL IBRAHIM, S/O. K.A LATHEEF, AGED 44 YEARS, RESIDING AT RANGERS HOUSE, MANJERI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.** **BY ADVS. SRI.BABU S. NAIR SMT.SMITHA BABU SRI.P.A.RAJESH SMT.SHAMSEERA. C.ASHRAF SHRI.SUJIL C.S.** ## **RESPONDENTS:** **1 THE MANJERI MUNICIPALITY REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MANJERI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-676 121. 2 THE SECRETARY, MANJERI MUNICIPALITY, MANJERI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-676 121.** **BY SRI.R.RANJITH(MANJERI), STANDING COUNSEL** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05.03.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** WP(C).No.6619 OF 2020(B) 2 ## **ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.** ------------------------------------------W.P.(C)No.6619 of 2020 ---------------------------------------------Dated this the 5[th] day of March, 2020 ## **JUDGMENT** The case set up in this Writ Petition (Civil) is as follows:- That the traders/merchants of petitioner association were issued with trade licences to conduct various businesses/shops and other establishments by the Manjeri Municipality. Most of the merchants/traders are doing their business in tenanted premises. This year, when the trade licenses were about to be expired, they made applications for renewal of the same. At that point of time, the merchants were asked by the Municipality to produce fresh consent of building owners/landlords and also to produce building tax receipts, for the current year, to be paid by landlords/building owners. At that point of time, petitioner has made Exhibits P3 and P4 representations to second respondent and also to Chair Person of the respondent Municipality. 2. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that at the time of renewal of trade licenses, the Municipality cannot insist for production of fresh consent from landlords/building owners nor merchants cannot be asked to furnish proof of payment of building tax by the landlord as it is illegal and Municipality cannot simply refuse to WP(C).No.6619 OF 2020(B) 3 renew the trade licence on these grounds only. It is further submitted that this issue is covered by judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in _**Sudhakaran v. Corporation of Trivandrum & Another [2016 (14) SCC 263 = 2016(3) KIHC 803 (SC) = 2016(3) KLT 247].**_ In the said decision, it has been clearly stated that at the time of renewal of trade licence, no fresh consent nor any other documents shall be insisted and the consent needs to be obtained only when a person applies for licence at the first instance, and if the building owner gives his consent, for subsequent renewal, it shall not be insisted. Same is the case with payment of building tax, which is the liability of the building owner and if any failure on the part of the building owners/land lord occurs, there are methods by which it could be realised by the Municipality. Therefore, insistence of the Municipality for production of current building tax receipt and also consent of the landlord for renewal of licence is _per se_ illegal, arbitrary, unjust and the same is liable to be interfered with this Court. 3. It is in the light of the above factual averments and contentions that the petitioner has filed instant Writ Petition (Civil) with the following prayers:- _i) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writs, orders or directions commanding the respondents not to insist the members of the petitioner to produce the fresh consent of the landlord and also the proof of payment of building tax by the landlord, for the purpose of renewal of existing trade licence;_ _ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writs, orders or directions commanding the respondents to_ WP(C).No.6619 OF 2020(B) 4 _accept, process the applications for renewal of the existing trade licences of the members of the petitioner-association, without insisting the production of fresh consent from the building owners and the production of the proof of payment of building tax, forthwith;_ _iii) Grant such other reliefs as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.”_ 4. Heard Sri.Babu S. Nair, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. Ranjith (Manjeri), learned Standing Counsel for the respondents (Manjeri Municipality). 5. The grievance raised by the petitioner in this writ petition is that the respondents are now insisting for fresh consent of the building owners/landlords and also for production copy of the receipt proving payment of building tax to the Municipality, for the current year, etc. for consideration and grant of renewal of existing trade licences of the members of petitioner association. 6. It is strongly urged by Sri.Babu S. Nair, learned counsel for the petitioner that the matter in issue, in that regard, is covered fully in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents, as per the dictum laid down by the Apex Court in _**Sudhakaran's**_ case (supra). It is held categorically therein that at the time of renewal of D & O Licence, no fresh consent nor any other document can be insisted by the local authorities concerned and consent may be obtained only at the first time when the applicant is seeking fresh license to conduct trade in the premises rented out to him by the landlord concerned, and once such a consent is given by the building owner, at the time of grant of the fresh WP(C).No.6619 OF 2020(B) 5 license, then, thereafter, the applicant need not to produce fresh consent for subsequent renewals of the license in the subsequent years, before the local authorities, concerned. 7. It is pointed out by learned counsel for petitioner that the dictum laid down by the Apex Court in the above said decision, in regard to the submission of consent of the landlord to occupy the building by the tenant/applicant, it would also apply in the case of insistence of condition that the applicant should produce receipt of the property building tax paid by the landlord for the building occupied by the applicant, etc. 8. After hearing both sides, it is ordered and declared that the position of law declared by the Apex Court in _**Sudhakaran's**_ case (supra), would apply and regulate in this case as well and it has to be adhered by the respondent/Municipal authorities, concerned. The petitioner herein is an association of traders and merchants and according to the petitioner, 50 individual members of the petitioner association who seek the individual relief and that the petitioner association had paid court fee not only for the petitioner association but also for 49 other individual members of the association and total court fees amounts to `5,000/- (100 x 50=5000) has also been remitted in this case. 9. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the 49 individual members of petitioner association who WP(C).No.6619 OF 2020(B) 6 individually seek benefit of the directions of this Court ought to give separate representations/petitions before the second respondentSecretary, Manjeri Municipality similar to the representations as per Ext.P4 dated 11.02.2020 already filed by the petitioner association. The 49 individual members may submit their representation either collectively or separately according to their choice, without much delay, at any rate, within a period of one week from the date notified for issuance of a certified copy of this judgment. They shall also produce certified copy of the judgment along with their representation. On receipt of the representation, the competent official among the respondents will take up Ext.P4 representation filed by the petitioner association and the other representations filed by the 49 other individual members of the petitioner association for redressal of the grievances already pointed out in Ext.P4, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner association through its authorised representative or through counsel, if any, and render an appropriate decision in the matter, in the light of the dictum already laid down by the Apex Court _**Sudhakaran's**_ case (supra) , without much delay, at any rate, within a further period of four weeks from the date of receipt of such application. Until a final decision is taken by the respondents on Ext.P4 and the representations filed by 49 other individual members, it is ordered that the application for renewal of the trades and D& O Licence of those 49 individual members of the WP(C).No.6619 OF 2020(B) 7 petitioner association shall be considered by the competent officials among the respondents, without insisting for submission of fresh consent of the landlord and copy of receipt of building property tax paid by the landlord in respect of the rooms/building occupied by the respective applicant concerned. However, the said arrangement will be subject to the final decision taken by the respondents on Ext.P4 and the other representations, as above. With these observations and directions, the above Writ Petition (Civil) will stand finally disposed of. ## **Sd/-** **ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE** Skk//06032020 WP(C).No.6619 OF 2020(B) 8 ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1** **TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE OF THE PETITIONER ASSOCIATION AS REGISTRATION NO. 262/1981 DATED, 12-11-1981** **EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE RESOLUTION TAKEN BY THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE OF THE MANJERI MUNCIPAL UNIT OF THE PETITIONER DATED, 29-2-2020** **EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION MADE BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED, 11-2-2020** **EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION MADE BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE CHAIRPERSON OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT MUNICIPALITY DATED 11-2-2020.** ## **RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL**