SASI P P v. Perumanna Grama Panchayath

# **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH ``` ``` TUESDAY, THE 6[TH] DAY OF JUNE 2023 / 16TH JYAISHTA, 1945 ``` ``` WP(C) NO. 6754 OF 2023 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENTRCP 23/2018 OF PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF COURT ,KOZHIKODE-II ``` ## **`PETITIONER:`** ``` SASI P P AGED 56 YEARS S/O VASU P P, PADINJARE PAREKKOTTU POYIL HOUSE, PERUMANNA P O, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673019 BY ADVS. NIRMAL.S VEENA HARI RIA ELIZABETH JOSEPH IRENE ELZA SOJI K. REMIYA RAMACHANDRAN VARUN MURALEEDHARAN ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS:`** - **`1 PERUMANNA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY PERUMANNA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, PERUMANNA ROAD, PERUMANNA P.O, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673026`** - **`2 THE SECRETARY, PERUMANNA GRAMA PANCHAYATH PERUMANNA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, PERUMANNA ROAD, PERUMANNA P.O, KOZHIKODE., PIN - 673026 BY ADVS. SRI.Vinod Singh Cheriyan T.M.KHALID(K/000047/2013) K.P.SUSMITHA(K/956/2001)`** ``` THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06.06.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` WP(C) NO.6754 OF 2023 ``` ``` 2 ``` ## **JUDGMENT** Dated this the 6[th] day of June, 2023 The petitioner, who is running a Hotel under the name and style “P P Hotel”, Perumanna in Kozhikode, has approached this Court seeking to renew Ext.P1 FTE & OS Licence and issue the same in the name of the petitioner. 2. The petitioner states that he along with his father was conducting the Hotel business. The petitioner’s father was issued with Ext.P1 Licence, which was valid upto 31.03.2023. The petitioner’s father unfortunately passed away on 10.09.2022. The petitioner submitted an application for renewal of the licence in his name. Ext.P5 is the Acknowledgment Receipt. It appears that the respondents have taken a stand that the said licence being in force, its extension is not required. The petitioner, thereafter, submitted yet another application for a fresh licence in his name, the ``` WP(C) NO.6754 OF 2023 ``` ``` 3 ``` receipt of which is acknowledged by Ext.P7. Ext.P5 application submitted by the petitioner stands rejected as per Ext.P6 order dated 17.01.2023 stating that the licence granted to building No.4/210 is valid upto 31.03.2023. 3. The petitioner states that the landlord in respect of the building has filed RCP No.23/2018 before the Rent Control Court-II, Kozhikode. It is with a view to support the landlord that the respondents are not issuing or renewing the licence to the petitioner. Counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgment of this Court in _**Kattoor Khadeeja v. P.K.C. Mariyumma and others**_ [2020 (5) KLT 1181], wherein a Division Bench of this Court held that the legal heir of a deceased tenant approaching the Municipality for renewal of a licence cannot be insisted upon for securing consent from the owner of the building. Therefore, the respondents are compellable to issue licence in the name of the petitioner, urged the counsel for the petitioner. ``` WP(C) NO.6754 OF 2023 ``` ``` 4 ``` 4. Standing Counsel entered appearance on behalf of the respondents and resisted the writ petition. The Standing Counsel denied all the allegations made by the petitioner in the writ petition. On behalf of the respondents, it is submitted that the application acknowledged by Ext.P5 was made during the currency of the existing licence, which was valid upto 31.03.2023. The application acknowledged by Ext.P7 was also made during the currency of Ext.P1 licence. Since there is already a valid licence in respect of the building, the respondents did not entertain the applications submitted by the petitioner. In the facts of the case, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed, contended the Standing Counsel. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel representing the respondents. 6. Admittedly, Ext.P1 licence was existing in the name of the petitioner’s father and it was current and valid till 31.03.2023. The petitioner’s father passed away on ``` WP(C) NO.6754 OF 2023 ``` ``` 5 ``` 10.09.2022, as is evidenced by Ext.P2 Death Certificate. The petitioner made application for renewal of licence in the name of the petitioner on 12.12.2022, which is discernible from Ext.P5 Acknowledgment Receipt. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondents insisted that the licence is valid. Therefore, the petitioner submitted yet another application evidenced by Ext.P7 seeking for issuance of a licence in his name. Ext.P7 was also made on 05.01.2023. 7. From Rule 10 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj (Issuance of Liecece to Factories, Traders, Entrepreneurship activities and other services) Rules, 1996, it is evident that a person intending to renew the licence is expected to submit applications before the expiry of the year of validity of the licence. The petitioner did so as per Ext.P5. It is to be noted that the petitioner has also submitted Ext.P7 application for issuance of Permit in his name. Under the circumstances, the respondents are legally bound to consider the applications submitted by the petitioner. The respondents cannot reject the ``` WP(C) NO.6754 OF 2023 ``` ``` 6 ``` applications for the reason that the petitioner has submitted the applications before the expiry of the existing Permit. 8. The petitioner submits that the respondents have orally required the petitioner to get a fresh No Objection Certificate from the landlord for the purpose of issuance of licence. This Court has considered the said issue in the judgment in _**Kattoor Khadeeja v. P.K.C. Mariyumma and others**_ (supra) and this Court held that the heir or heirs of a deceased tenant approaching the Local Self Government Institution for renewal of a licence cannot be insisted upon for securing consent from the owner of the building. The said issue is covered by another judgment also of this Court in _**Marimuthu v. Director General of Police** [ 1999 (3) KLT 662]._ In view of the above, the stand taken by the respondents is unsustainable in law. The writ petition is therefore disposed of setting aside Ext.P6 order and directing the 2[nd] respondent-Secretary to the Perumanna Grama Panchayat to consider Exts.P5 and P7 ``` WP(C) NO.6754 OF 2023 ``` ``` 7 ``` applications submitted by the petitioner afresh treating the same as valid applications. It is made clear that the 2[nd] respondent shall not insist for No Objection Certificate from the landlord for the purpose of renewal/ issue of Building Permit to the petitioner. Orders in this regard shall be passed within a period of one month. ## **N.NAGARESH** **JUDGE** hmh ``` WP(C) NO.6754 OF 2023 ``` ``` 8 ``` ## **`APPENDIX OF WP(C) 6754/2023`** ## **`PETITIONER EXHIBITS`** ``` Exhibit P1 ``` ``` TRUE COPY OF THE FACTORIES TRADES ENTREPRENEURSHIP ACTIVITIES AND OTHER SERVICES (FTE& OS) LICENSE NO.110/2022- 23/A-5/2424/22 DATED 01-04-2022 ``` ``` Exhibit P2TRUE COPY OF THE DEATH CERTIFICATE OF THE PETITIONER'S FATHER DATED 12/09/2022 ``` ``` Exhibit P3TRUE COPY OF THE SURVIVING FAMILY MEMBERSHIP CERTIFICATE DATED 17/11/2022 Exhibit P4TRUE COPY OF THE NO OBJECTION CERTIFICATE DATED 25/11/2022 ``` - **`Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT RECEIPT DATED 12/12/2022 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT ON THE APPLICATION OF THE PETITIONER`** - **`Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE REJECTION ORDER NO.400995/RPDC06/GPO/2023/151/(2) ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 17/01/2023`** - **`Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT RECEIPT DATED 23-01-2023 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT ON THE APPLICATION OF THE PETITIONER`** - **`Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE RCP 23/2018 PENDING BEFORE THE HON'BLE ADDITIONAL MUNSIFFII, KOZHIKODE`** ``` RESPONDENT’S EXHIBITS : NIL ```