High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2019-10-24Writ petition allowed; directions issued to hea...

MANOJ KUMAR A.C. v Puliyoor Grama Panchayath and Others

Case / Petition Number:WP(C).No.27760 OF 2019(T)

Neutral Citation:WPC 27760/19

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Devan Ramachandran
Judgment Date: 2019-10-24
Court Decision / Holding: The writ petition is allowed. The Secretary of the 1st respondent Grama Panchayath is directed to forthwith hear the petitioner and respondents 3 and 4 and take a final decision on the petitioner’s renewal application, adverting to Vijayajyothi Traders, Sudhakaran and Shajahan M.I. (supra), as expeditiously as possible, but not later than one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The Secretary may consider all germane inputs and the decision shall be communicated to the parties. In the meantime, the petitioner’s business will be allowed to continue. Additionally, the 2nd respondent is directed to issue the Sanitary Certificate immediately, provided the petitioner complies with all necessary legal requirements, within one week from the date of receipt of this judgment, so as to enable the 1st respondent to complete the renewal process.
Final Disposition: Writ petition allowed; directions issued to hear and decide within one month; 2nd respondent to issue Sanitary Certificate within one week; petitioner permitted to continue business pending decision.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

MANOJ KUMAR A.C.

Respondents

Puliyoor Grama Panchayath, represented by its Secretary, Grama Panchayath Office, Puliyoor P.O., Chenganoor-689510
Health Inspector, Primary Health Centre, Puliyoor P.O., Chenganoor-689510
Satheesh Kumar, S/o A.K. Chellappan Pillai, Saha ja Sadanam House, Perissery P.O., Puliyoor Village-689126
Santoshkumar C., S/o A.K. Chellappan Pillai, Archana House, Perisserry P.O., Puliyoor Village-689126

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• SRI. Rinny Stephen Chamaparampil
• SMT. ASHA ELIZABETH MATHEW

Counsels for Respondents

• SRI. ARUN CHANDRAN
• SRI. HARIMOHAN
• SRI. SOJAN MICHEAL
• SRI. PAUL ABRAHAM VAKKANAL

Case Synopsis & Summary

Manoj Kumar A.C., a trader operating at Puliyoor, approaches this High Court seeking renewal of his trade licence from Puliyoor Grama Panchayath. The petitioner alleges that the Panchayath is conditioning renewal on an NOC from the landlords (the respondents 3 and 4), who are in ongoing eviction disputes with him, or on production of the latest lease deed. He contends that such a requirement is not normally permissible for licence renewal, pointing to this Court’s decisions in Vijayajyothi Traders v. Municipal Corporation of Thrissur and Others, Sudhakaran v. Corporation of Trivandrum and Another, and Shajahan M.I. v. Alice George and Others as supporting authority. The Panchayath’s counsel submits that it has merely sought NOC or lease evidence to confirm possession, and would consider the renewal after hearing the landlords if directed. Respondents 3 and 4, represented by counsel, reveal that eviction proceedings have been initiated, and pray for dismissal of the petition, or at least a hearing afforded to them if the Court elects to direct renewal. The Judge acknowledges the law in the cited judgments, but declines to declare a broad principle, preferring to leave the final decision to the competent Panchayath after hearing both sides. The Court directs the Secretary to hear the petitioner and respondents 3 and 4 and decide the renewal within one month, while allowing the petitioner to continue business pending decision, and directs the Health Department to issue a Sanitary Certificate within a week upon compliance.

Provisions of Law Cited

FSS Act

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Prima facie

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner contends that the Panchayath cannot insist on an NOC from landlords for renewal of the licence; cites Vijayajyothi Traders v. Municipal Corporation of Thrissur and Others, Sudhakaran v. Corporation of Trivandrum and Another, and Shajahan M.I. v. Alice George and Others to support the position that NOC is not normally required for renewal. Seeks a direction to renew the licence and to issue the Sanitary Certificate to facilitate renewal.

Contentions of Respondents

Panchayath submits that renewal cannot be considered without verification of continued occupancy; requires NOC or lease deed to confirm possession; expresses willingness to hear landlords if directed; eviction proceedings against petitioner and their involvement are noted.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Vijayajyothi Traders v. Municipal Corporation of Thrissur and Others	2018(5)KHC 680	Positive	Court relies on this decision to support the proposition that NOC from landlords is not normally required for renewal of a licence.
Sudhakaran v. Corporation of Trivandrum and Another	2016(3)KHC 803	Positive	Cited to reinforce the same principle regarding renewal without landlord NOC.
Shajahan M.I. v. Alice George and Others	2015(1)KHC 811	Positive	Cited for the same principle regarding licence renewal and NOC.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against MANOJ KUMAR A.C. v Puliyoor Grama Panchayath and Others and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN** ## **THURSDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2019 / 2ND KARTHIKA, 1941** ## **WP(C).No.27760 OF 2019(T)** ## **PETITIONER/S:** **MANOJKUMAR.A.C., AGED 46 YEARS S/O.A.V.CHELLAPPAN PILLAI, AKAMUTTATHU, PERISSERY.P.O., PULIYOOR VILLAGE, CHENGANOOR-689126.** **BY ADVS. SRI.RINNY STEPHEN CHAMAPARAMPIL SMT.ASHA ELIZABETH MATHEW** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** |**1**|**PULIYOOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REPRESENTED BY ITS**| |---|---| ||**SECRETARY, GRAMA PANCHAYATH OFFICE,**| ||**PULIYOOR.P.O., CHENGANOOR-689510.**| |**2**|**HEALTH INSPECTOR, PRIMARY HEALTH CENTRE,**| ||**PULIYOOR.P.O., CHENGANOOR-689510.**| |**3**|**SATHEESH KUMAR, S/O.A.K.CHELLAPPAN PILLAI,**| ||**SAHAJA SADANAM HOUSE, PERISSERRY.P.O.,**| ||**PULIYOOR VILLAGE-689126.**| |**4**|**SANTHOSHKUMAR.C., S/O.A.K.CHELLAPPAN PILLAI,**| ||**ARCHANA HOUSE, PERISSERRY.P.O.,**| ||**PULIYOOR VILLAGE-689126.**| ||**R3-4 BY ADV. SRI.ARUN CHANDRAN**| ||**R3-4 BY ADV. SHRI.HARIMOHAN**| ||**SC, PANCHAYAT- SRI. SOJAN MICHEAL,**| ||**GP-SRI PAUL ABRAHAM VAKKANAL**| **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24.10.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** WPC 27760/19 2 ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioner has approached this Court seeking that Puliyoor Grama Panchayath be directed to consider his application for renewal of Trade Licence without any further delay. He alleges that the Panchayath is refusing to do so, requiring him to produce a No Objection Certificate (NOC) from respondents 3 and 4, who are the owners of the building in which he is doing business; but that this is an impossible condition, because the said respondents are at loggerheads with him seeking his eviction. 2. The petitioner contends that the Panchayath cannot ask him to produce NOC from the landlords for renewal of his licence in view of the judgments of this Court in **Vijayajyothi Traders v. Municipal Coroporation of Thrissur and Others [2018(5)KHC 680],** WPC 27760/19 3 **Sudhakaran v. Corporation of Trivandrum and Another [2016(3)KHC 803] and Shajahan M.I. v.** **Alice George and Others [2015(1)KHC 811]** . 3. The learned Standing Counsel for Puliyoor Grama Panchayath-Sri.Sojan Michael, submits that the petitioner has only been asked to obtain NOC from the landlords or to produce the latest lease deed, so as to enable the Panchayath to confirm that he is still in possession of the building. He says that no other requirements have been sought for and that if this Court is so inclined, the Panchayath is willing to consider the application for renewal preferred by the petitioner after hearing the landlords also. 4. Sri.Arun Chandran-learned counsel appearing for respondents 3 and 4, confirms that his clients have already initiated action for eviction of the petitioner from the WPC 27760/19 4 building in question and therefore, prays that this Writ Petition be dismissed and the petitioner be not allowed to obtain renewal of his licence. He adds that if at all this Court is inclined to direct the Panchayath to consider the petitioner's application, his clients may also be given an opportunity of being heard. 5. When I consider the afore submissions, it is without doubt that through the judgments in **Vijayajyothi Traders, Sudhakaran and** **Shajahan M.I.** ( _supra_ ), this Court has declared the law rather emphatically that when applications for renewal of licence is made, the Panchayath cannot normally insist on NOC to be obtained from the landlord. _Prima facie_ , therefore, I find some force in the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner. 6. However, I do not find it necessary or WPC 27760/19 5 appropriate to make any further declarations on this issue and deem it better to leave it to the competent Authority of the Panchayath to take a final decision, adverting to the afore judgments and after hearing both sides. In the afore circumstances, I order this writ petition and direct the Secretary of the 1[st] respondent-Grama Panchayath to forthwith hear the petitioner as well as respondents 3 and 4 and take a final decision on the petitioner's application for renewal of his licence, adverting to **Vijayajyothi Traders,** **Sudhakaran and Shajahan M.I.** ( _supra_ ), as expeditiously as is possible, but not later than one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Needless to say, while completing the afore exercise, the Secretary will be at liberty to refer to all other germane and relevant inputs; WPC 27760/19 6 and until such time as a decision is taken in terms of this judgment and communicated to the parties, the business of the petitioner will be allowed to continue. After I dictated this judgment, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is an additional prayer in this Writ Petition that the 2[nd] respondent also be directed to issue necessary Sanitary Certificate without insisting on the NOC of the landlord. I am certain that this is a prayer that can be acceded to by this Court, since without such certificate, the 1[st] respondent-Grama Panchayath cannot complete the process as has been ordered above. I, consequentially, direct the 2[nd] respondent to immediately issue the Sanitary Certificate, provided the petitioner complies and satisfies all the necessary legal requirements and conditions, within a period of WPC 27760/19 7 one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, so as to enable the 1[st] respondent to complete the above directed exercise within the time frame fixed herein. ## **Sd/-** ## **DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN** RR **JUDGE** WPC 27760/19 8 ## APPENDIX ||APPENDIX| |---|---| |PETITIONER'S/S|EXHIBITS:| |EXHIBIT P1|A TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTRATION| ||RENEWAL CERTIFICATE ISSUED UNDER THE| ||FSS ACT IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER.| |EXHIBIT P2|A TRUE COPY OF THE LEASE DEED DATED| ||4.11.2017.| |EXHIBIT P3|A TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN| ||O.S.NO.155/2019 OF THE MUNSIFF'S| ||COURT CHENGANNUR.| |EXHIBIT P4|A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF| ||INJUNCTION IN IA.NO.688/2019 IN| ||O.S.NO.155/2019 OF THE MUNSIFF'S| ||COURT CHENGANNUR.| |EXHIBIT P5|A TRUE COPY OF THE TRADE LICENCE| ||NO.106-3094/17 ISSUED BY THE 1ST| ||RESPONDENT.| |EXHIBIT P6|A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED| ||24.9.2019 PRESENTED BY THE| ||PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST| ||RESPONDENT.|