[ad_1]
Kerala High Court
K.Aboobacker Haji vs M/S Hotel Green Chillies on 1 July, 2025
Author: Amit Rawal
Bench: Amit Rawal
2025:KER:49387
WA NO. 1407 OF 2024
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. V. BALAKRISHNAN
TUESDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF JULY 2025 / 10TH ASHADHA, 1947
WA NO. 1407 OF 2024
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 19.06.2024 IN WP(C) NO.39029 OF
2023 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT(S)/NOT PARTY IN THE WRIT PETITION (CIVIL):
1 K.ABOOBACKER HAJI
AGED 72 YEARS
S/O.KUNJABDULLA HAJI, KAKKATTU, NADAPURAM,VATAKARA,
KOZHIKODE., PIN - 673504
2 MUHAMMED
AGED 21 YEARS
S/O.K.ABOOBACKER HAJI, KAKKATTU, NADAPURAM,VATAKARA,
KOZHIKODE., PIN - 673504
BY ADVS.
SHRI.N.KRISHNA PRASAD
SRI.P.SHANES METHAR
SHRI.PUSHPARAJ.K.P
RESPONDENT(S)/PETITIONERS 1 TO 4 & RESPONDENTS 1 TO 4 IN THE WRIT
PETITION (CIVIL):
1 M/S HOTEL GREEN CHILLIES
DOOR NO. 17/23, INDIRA GANDHI ROAD, KOZHIKODE 673001
REPRESENTED BY SRI. RAFEEQ C K, S/O MUHAMMED C K, AGED 41
YEARS, RESIDING AT THAZHE MURINGOLI, EAST CANAL ROAD,
MERIKKUNNU P O, KURUVATTUR, PARAMBIL, KOZHIKODE, PIN -
673012
2 P K FAIZAL AHAMMED
AGED 52 YEARS
S/O MOIDEEN AHAMMED, RESIDING AT SHIFA, VENGERI, PO
KARAPPARAMBA, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673010
3 ASHRAF K
AGED 52 YEARS
S/O K P KUNJALI, RESIDING AT KUNJALI'S, THACHANGOTTUMMAL,
MERIKKUNNU P O, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673612
2025:KER:49387
WA NO. 1407 OF 2024
2
4 RAFEEQ C K
AGED 41 YEARS
S/O MUHAMMED C K, RESIDING AT THAZHE MURINGOLI, EAST CANAL
ROAD, MERIKKUNNU P O, KURUVATTUR, PARAMBIL, KOZHIKODE, PIN
- 673012
5 KOZHIKODE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION
OFFICE OF THE KOZHIKODE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION KOZHIKODE
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, PIN - 673001
6 THE SECRETARY
KOZHIKODE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, OFFICE OF THE KOZHIKODE
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673001
7 THE HEALTH OFFICER
KOZHIKODE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, OFFICE OF THE KOZHIKODE
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673001
8 SHIBAS E.K.
AGED 43 YEARS
S/O. P.T. UMMERKOYA, RESIDING AT SHAS HOUSE, NAYAR MADAM
ROAD, MEENCHANDA, POST NALLALAM, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673027
BY ADVS.
SHRI.M.K.SUMOD
SRI.V.KRISHNA MENON
SRI.R.SUDHISH
SMT.VIDYA M.K.
SMT.THUSHARA.K
SMT.DELITA TITUS
SMT.NAMITHA GEORGE
SMT.M.MANJU
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01.07.2025, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:49387
WA NO. 1407 OF 2024
3
JUDGMENT
Amit Rawal, J.
The present intra court appeal is at the instance of the
third party alleging to be the owner of the property in
question, where the business under the name and style of
Hotel Green Chillies, Calicut was being run which involves
adjudication of an issue that whether the Municipal
Corporation, Calicut in rejecting the application of the
respondent for issuing D&O licence under Section 492 of the
Kerala Municipality Act, 1994, was justified in law or not.
2. The facts necessary for adjudication of the lis, in
brief, enumerated are under:
The first appellant, who is claiming to be the owner of the
property, had submitted an application for issuance of D&O
licence to the concerned Municipality in August 2018 as per
the Municipality Act to run the bakery, fastfood under the
name and style ‘Hotel Green Chillies’, Mavoor Road, Calicut.
The year mentioned in the aforementioned licence was 2018-
19.
3. The Licence was issued on 28.4.2018. After
2025:KER:49387
WA NO. 1407 OF 2024
4
obtaining the aforementioned licence, a partner ship deed of
10.8.2018 was entered into between the respondents namely
Sri.P.K Faizal Ahammed, Sri. Ashraf K with Sri.K.Aboobacker
Haji whereas the first person ie., P.K Faizal Ahammed was
described as a Managing partner of the firm with respective
percentage of profits and liabilities.
4. An application on behalf of the partners ie.,
Sri.P.K Faizal Ahammed and Sri. Ashraf K was submitted for
renewal of D&O licence for carrying on the business under the
name and style ‘Hotel Green Chillies’ which was rejected by
the Corporation on the ground that the fresh application has to
be submitted. Accordingly, an application dated 20.9.2023
was submitted which was rejected vide communication dated
27.11.2023 acknowledging the receipt of the application as
20.9.2023 on the ground that the earlier licence was in the
name of Sri.K.Aboobacker Haji and therefore the application
cannot be considered. It is the said document was assailed in
the writ petition on the ground that as per the provisions of
sub Section 447(6) of the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994,
application was submitted for issuance of D&O licence within
the time prescribed and the concerned authority does not
2025:KER:49387
WA NO. 1407 OF 2024
5
communicate any permission or otherwise within 30 days of
the receipt of the application, shall be deemed to have been
allowed.
5. The Municipality reiterated the stand taken in the
communication assailed before the writ court and denied that
at any point of time, Municipal Corporation had advised the
petitioners in the writ petition to submit a fresh application
when the earlier application had been rejected.
6. Learned Single Judge vide judgment under
challenge allowed the writ petition. The order is short and
therefore we deem it appropriate to extract the same.
The petitioners had made an application for a D & O
licence on 20.09.2023 for running a restaurant and cool
bar, as is seen from Ext.P5. Ext.P6 is the
acknowledgement issued by the Corporation dated
20.9.2023. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contends
that no orders were passed either allowing or rejecting
the application within 30 days from the receipt of the
application, which resulted in the operation of Section
447(6) of the Kerala Municipalities Act, 1994, entitling
the petitioner to a deemed licence, for the period
required in the application subject to the Acts, Rules
and bylaws and all conditions which should have been
ordinarily imposed.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the additional
respondents who had filed a complaint before the
Corporation alleging that the petitioners are running a
business without a licence, submits that a renewal
application filed for running the business was returned
as it was not filed by the proper person. It is to be noted
that the petitioners accepted the said stand of the
2025:KER:49387
WA NO. 1407 OF 2024
6
Corporation by filing a new application through Ext P5.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner cites the
judgments in Abdul Shafeek v. Asamannoor Grama
Panchayath and another [2018 (3) KHC 170] and
Sudhakaran v. Pallichal Grama Panchayath and another
[2016 (2) KHC 481]. In view of the admitted fact that no
order was passed either allowing or rejecting the
application, it is declared that the petitioner is entitled
to a deemed licence within the meaning of Section 447
(6) for the period sought for in Ext.P5 application,
namely 2023-2027.
4. Consequently, there will be a direction to the second
respondent to issue a permit in writing acknowledging
the fact that the petitioners are entitled to a deemed
licence for the period 2023-2027. However, it is made
clear that the Corporation shall ensure that the
petitioners carry on the business on the strength of the
deemed licence referred to above by adhering to all the
provisions of law and the Corporation will be free to
invoke the provisions of the Act and Rules in case any
violation is committed by the petitioners while running
the business. The Corporation shall issue the required
certificate/licence as directed above within three weeks
from today.
7. The aforementioned order has been now assailed
before this Court in the intra court appeal on behalf of
K.Aboobacker Haji and another on the ground of having not
been impleaded as a party as well as the fact that there was an
incorrect interpretation before the Municipality for the reason
that there was a rent agreement dated 1.8.2018 and
subsequently a partnership deed of 10.8.2018. Moreover the
earlier licence was issued in the name of the appellant, which
2025:KER:49387
WA NO. 1407 OF 2024
7
was only valid for a period of one year and there was no
business for the period of five years till the application in 2023
was submitted by the contesting respondents-writ petitioners
but did not deny the fact that the partnership deed continued
for a certain period by carrying on the business under the
name and style ‘Hotel Green Chillies’. The factum of
reconstitution as alleged by the contesting respondents was
also emphatically denied.
8. This Court while admitting the writ appeal on
9.9.2024 also passed an interim order prohibiting the
contesting respondents ie., respondent No.1 to 4 from carrying
on the business on the strength of the deemed licence that was
recognized by the learned Single Judge in the impugned
judgment.
9. The aforementioned order was assailed before the
Supreme Court in SLP No.22100 of 2024 and vide order dated
24.9.2024 while issuing notice there was an interim order.
The order reads as under:
Issue notice.
In the meanwhile, there shall be stay of the judgment
and order passed by the High Court.
2025:KER:49387
WA NO. 1407 OF 20248
10. It is a matter of record that later on, the
Supreme Court vide order dated 7.5.2025 disposed of the SLP
with a direction to dispose of the pending intra court appeal
as expeditiously as possible. The order reads thus:
1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective
parties.
2. While we are not inclined to interfere with the
impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court,
we request the High Court to take up and dispose of the
writ appeal as expeditiously as possible.
3. With these observations, the Special Leave petition is
disposed of. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand
disposed of.
11. It is a matter of record that pursuant to the disposal
of the SLP as per the counter affidavit filed by the Municipal
Corporation in this Court dated 10.6.2025, it has been ascertained
from paragraph No.5 that Corporation had on 27.5.2025 closed the
hotel of the writ petitioners-contesting respondents.
12. Mr. M.K Sumod, learned counsel for the respondents
submitted that no doubt the first appellant had taken the licence for
2018 on 28.4.2018 in his name but realizing that would not be
feasible, entered into a partnership deed on 10.8.2018. Thus,
the terms and conditions of the rent agreement dated 1.8.2018
were superseded, and the parties subsequently entered into a
partnership deed, which was also registered with the Registrar
of Firms. The business was carried out for a period of five
2025:KER:49387
WA NO. 1407 OF 20249
years and the necessity only arose for submission of theapplication for renewal when the period of five year expired.
Had the licence been for a period of one year, the necessary
application could have been filed after the expiry of the one
year as alleged. In other words, as per the provisions of
Section 447(4), in the absence of any period mentioned in the
licence, the validity of the licence would be for a period of five
years. It is in that background, the application for renewal
was submitted which was rejected by the authority calling
upon the contesting respondents to obtain the consent of the
owner as per the provisions of 447(3) and (4) of the Section
492 of the Municipality Act, 1994.
13. In support of the submission relied upon the
judgment of the Supreme Court in M.G Meethu v. Corporation
of Trivandrum (2013) SCC online Ker 1898 and Sudhakaran v.
Corporation of Trivandrum and Another (2016 (14) SCC 263) to
contend that for renewal, the consent of the landlord is not
required. Even the partnership firm was also issued a PAN
number ie., the entire transaction of the business was carried
out under the name and style of ‘Hotel Green Chillies’. Thus
the entire transaction of the business was carried out under
2025:KER:49387
WA NO. 1407 OF 2024
10
the name and style of ‘Hotel Green Chillies’.
14. On the other hand, Sri.V.Krishna Menon, Senior
counsel appearing on behalf of the Municipal Corporation
reiterated the stand taken in the communication challenged
before the Single Bench regarding the refusal to issue licence
in the absence of the consent of the owner and as well as the
fact that the application could not have been issued in the
name of different persons when the original licence was issued
in the name of Sri.K.Aboobacker Haji. It was also explained
that certain facts were inadvertently omitted in the counter
affidavit filed before the learned Single Bench in as much as
that the Corporation had only received two applications from
the writ petitioner, first one was for renewal which had been
rejected on 29.9.2023 and the second was received on
20.9.2023 bearing No.11254. However, the Corporation did
not receive the application bearing No.13032 dated 20.9.2023
much less the writ petitioner did not furnish any consent and
no objection from the land owner of the building where they
intended to carry business of the hotel cum restaurant.
15. During the pendency of the writ petition, writ
petitioners on 17.5.2025 had submitted a fresh application
2025:KER:49387
WA NO. 1407 OF 2024
11
through the K-Smart portal which was returned on 20.5.2025
calling upon to resubmit the same along with the no-
objection/consent from the landlord of the building. However
again on 22.5.2025 the application was resubmitted by the
writ petitioners but till now, had not submitted any objection
or consent of the landlord.
16. The aforementioned argument was countered on
the ground that the second application during the pendency
was submitted and pursuant to the judgment cited in support
of the contentions, there would be no statutory requirement in
law for seeking the renewal of the application if it is not a first
application. Therefore there has to be an adjudication on the
controversy pending in this Court.
17. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties
and appraised the paper book. The first and primary issue is
with regard to the consent of the landlord and for that, the
provisions of Section 492 of the Kerala Municipality Act are
required to be extracted. The same reads as under:
492. General provisions regarding licences and
permissions.
(1)Every licence and permission granted under this Act
or any rule or bye-law made thereunder shall specify the
2025:KER:49387
WA NO. 1407 OF 202412
period, if any, for which, and the restrictions, limitations
and conditions, subject to which, the same is granted and
shall be signed by the Secretary.
(2)Every licence issued by the Secretary shall specify the
person to whom, the premises in respect of which, and
the trade or business or undertaking for which the
licence is granted and for any change in the person, the
premises or the business, trade, or undertaking, a fresh
licence or permission shall betaken with or without
payment of further fee as the Municipality may fix.
(3)Where any person intending to obtain a licence or
permission for the first time and where the applicant is a
person other than the owner of the premises in question,
he shall, along with the application produce the written
consent of the owner of the premises and the period of
the licence shall not exceed the period, if any, specified
in the consent.
(4)Where the applicant seeking renewal of a licence or
permission in respect of the trade or business licensed in
the premises mentioned in sub-section (3) is a person
different from the original licensee or not the legal heir of
the original license the consent of the owner shall be
required.
(5)Save as otherwise expressly provided by or under this
Act, for every such licence or permission, fees may be
charged on such units and at such rates as may be fixed
by the Municipality with due regard to the expenditure to
be incurred for rendering service to the trade and for
regulation of the trade for which the licence or
permission is granted.
(6)The Municipality may-(a)place the collection of such
fees under management of such person as may appear to
it proper; or(b)farm out such collection for any period not
exceeding three years at a time and on such terms and
conditions as it may think fit.
(7)Every order of a Municipality refusing to grant or
suspending, revoking or modifying a licence or
permission shall be published on the notice board of the
Municipality.
(8)Every order of a Municipality refusing to grant, or
suspending, cancelling or modifying a licence or
permission shall be in writing and shall state the grounds
2025:KER:49387
WA NO. 1407 OF 202413
on which it proceeds.
(9)Subject to the provisions in this Chapter and regarding
buildings and private markets and subject to such
sanction as may be required for the refusal of a licence or
permission, any licence or permission granted under this
Act or any rule or bye-law made thereunder, may, at any
time, be suspended or revoked by the Secretary if any of
its restrictions, limitations or conditions is evaded or
infringed by the grantee, or if the grantee is convicted of
a breach of any of the provisions of this Act or of any
rule, bye-law or regulation made thereunder in any
matter to which such licence or permission relates, or if
the grantee has obtained the same by misrepresentation
or fraud.(10)It shall be the duty of the Secretary to
inspect places in respect of which a licence or permission
is required by or under this Act, and he may enter any
such place between sunrise and sunset and also between
sunset and sunrise if it is open to the public or any
industry is being carried on in it at the time and if he has
reason to believe that anything is being done in any place
without a licence or permission where the same is
required by or under this Act, or otherwise than in
conformity with the same, he may, at any time, by day or
night, without notice, enter such place for the purpose of
satisfying himself whether any provision of law, rule, bye-
law, regulations, any condition of a licence or permission
or any lawful directions, regulations, or prohibition is
being contravened, and no claim shall lie against any
person for any damage or inconvenience caused by the
exercise of powers under this sub-section by the
Secretary or any person to whom he has lawfully
delegated his power or by any force necessary for
effecting an entrance under this sub-section.
(11)Where any licence or permission is suspended or
revoked or where the period for which it was granted or
within which application for renewal should be made, has
expired, whichever expires later, the grantee shall for all
purposes of this Act or any rule or bye-law made
thereunder be deemed to be without a licence or
permission until the order suspending or revoking the
licence or permission is cancelled or, subject to sub-
section (15) until the licence or permission is renewed, as
the case may be.
2025:KER:49387
WA NO. 1407 OF 2024
14
(12)Every grantee of any licence or permission shall, at
all reasonable times, while such licence or permission
remains in force, produce the same when demanded by
the Secretary.
(13)Where any person is convicted of an offence in
respect of the failure to obtain a licence or permission or
make a registration required by the provisions of this Act
or any rule orbye-law made thereunder, the Magistrate
shall, in addition to any fine which may be imposed,
recover summarily and pay over to the Municipality the
amount of the fee chargeable for the licence or
permission or registration and, may in his discretion also
recover summarily and pay over to the Municipality such
amount, if any, as he may fix as the costs of the
prosecution.
(14)Recovery of the fee under sub-section (13) shall not
entitle the person convicted to a licence or permission or
to registration under this Act.
(15)The acceptance by the Municipality of the
prepayment of the fee for a licence or permission or for
registration shall not entitle the person making such
prepayment to the licence or permission or to
registration, as the case may be, but only to refund of the
fee in case of refusal of the licence or permission or of
registration, but an applicant for the renewal of a licence
or permission or registration shall until communication of
orders on his application be entitled to act as if the
licence or permission or registration had been renewed,
and save as otherwise specially provided in this Act, if
orders on an application for licence or permission or for
registration are not communicated to the applicant
within thirty days after the receipt of the application by
the Secretary, the application shall be deemed to have
been allowed for the year or for such less period as is
mentioned in the application, and subject to the law,
rules, bye-laws, regulations and all conditions ordinarily
imposed.
18. It is a matter of record that on 28.4.2018,
concededly, a licence was issued in the name of K.Aboobacker
2025:KER:49387
WA NO. 1407 OF 2024
15
Haji to run the business under the name and style ‘Hotel Green
Chillies’ for the purpose of bakery and other purposes. After
expiry of four (4) months had entered into an agreement of
rent with the writ petitioners ie., the respondent Nos.1 to 4 on
certain terms and conditions but nine (9) days thereafter had
entered into a partnership deed dated 10.8.2018 with the first
respondent as a Managing partner under the name and style
‘Hotel Green Chillies’ and an application for obtaining the
PAN number was submitted which was issued in the name of
the ‘Hotel Green Chillies’. Even the tax returns were filed in
the income tax department and other statutory requirements
of law. Though in the licence issued in the name of the
appellant period was mentioned 2018-19, it has to be
construed whether the provisions of Section 447(4) in the
absence of any mentioning of the period, the validity of the
licence was for five (5) years or otherwise. If we accept the
argument that it was only for one year then the only inference
drawn is that for a period of five (5) years, the business was
carried out without licence. That cannot be a valid acceptance
of the argument for the reason that no occasion arose either at
the instance of the appellant or party respondents ie., the writ
2025:KER:49387
WA NO. 1407 OF 2024
16
petitioners to submit an application in view of the plain and
simple reading of the language contained in Section 447(4) of
the Act as the cause of action in favour of one of the partners
arose only in 2023. The application dated 20.9.2023 with
Sl.No.13032 though Corporation allegedly did not receive, was
in fact replied by the Corporation on an application alleged to
have been submitted on other Sl.No.11254 received in the
office of the Corporation on 20.9.2023 to obtain the consent of
the landlord and also on the point that earlier licence was
issued in the name of Sri.K.Aboobacker Haji ie., the appellant.
19. The cumulative reading of the aforementioned
facts leads to irresistible conclusion that first licence had
already been issued. The question that now arises requires
consideration of sub-sections 3 and 4 of Section 492 of the Act.
The concept of renewal has undergone a sea change as earlier
whenever the driving licences or the passports were expiring,
an application for renewal was submitted but now whenever
such application has been made, new driving licence or the
passport is issued. It is in that context also, an application
was submitted by the writ petitioners for renewal of the
licence by the two partners to run the business under the
2025:KER:49387
WA NO. 1407 OF 2024
17
name and style of partnership firm.
20. It is a matter of record that the partnership deed
dated 10.8.2018 is at will and so far it has not been dissolved
by sending a notice of dissolution by either of the subsisting
partners. In our considered view, the decision of the
Corporation directing the parties to obtain the consent of the
landlord considering it to be the first application was wholly
erroneous, illegal and unjustified. We cannot remain oblivious
of the fact that after having obtained the licence for the first
time by the appellant allowed the partnership firm to carry on
the business and thereafter cannot volte face and take a plea
of non impleadment in the writ petition as had agreed the
business to be carried out under the name and style of ‘Hotel
Green Chillies’ without any demur, particularly during the
subsistence of the partnership deed. Section 447 of the Act
is required to be extracted.
447. Purpose for which places may not be used without
licence.
[(1) No place within a municipal area shall be used, –
(a)generally for industries, factories, trades, work places
and other services which directly or indirectly adversely
affect public interests such as environment, public safety
and public health or cause nuisance;
(b)and particularly for such matters as may be
prescribed, –
2025:KER:49387
WA NO. 1407 OF 2024
18
(i)without payment of licence fee at such rate as may be
prescribed by the Government for each purpose or at
such rate as the Municipality may fix subject to the said
rate by a notification published in such manner as may
be prescribed; and
(ii)except in accordance with the terms of the licence
granted in Such manner as may be prescribed:
Provided that the licence shall be deemed to contain
conditions to the effect that anything done in accordance
with the licence shall not be detrimental to any public
interest and in the matter of services, admission and
service to the place wherein it is provided shall be
available to any member of the public:
Provided further that if adequate steps for the protection
of environment/ public interest have not been taken as
per the conditions of the licence, the use of a land for
which licence is required under this section for such
matters as may be prescribed, if not otherwise proved,
shall be deemed to have been causing nuisance:Provided
also that a notification of the Municipality under this
section shall come into force on the date of completion
of sixty days from the date of its publication.]
(2)The owner or occupier of every such place shall
within thirty days of the publication of the notification
apply to the Secretary for a licence for the use of such
place for such purpose.
(2A) The Secretary or the officer authorized by him
shall, issue an acknowledgement to the applicant on
receipt of application along with the supporting
document in such form, as may be prescribed, and shall
verify the application and a supporting documents
immediately on receipt, and if any supporting document
required is not attached with the application the
Secretary or the officer authorized by him shall
immediately inform the applicant in writing the missing
document, if any, and allow the applicant to submit the
missing document at the earliest but not later than five
days from the date of receipt of application.]
“[(3) The Secretary or the Officer authorized by him
shall, within five days from the date of receipt of all
supporting documents along with the prescribed
clearance from other departments or authorities, by
2025:KER:49387
WA NO. 1407 OF 202419
order and subject to such terms and conditions as he
deems fit, grant the licence for use of the place for
conducting any industries, factories, trades,
entrepreneurship activities or other services, as the case
may be.
4) The period of licence granted under sub-section (3)]
or a licence deemed to have been granted under sub-
section (6) shall, unless a date is specified therein,
expire on completion of five years) from the date of its
issue.
(5) Every application for any licence or permission or for
its renewal under this Act or the rules or bye-laws made
thereunder, shall be made not less than thirty days and
not mone than ninety days before the earliest day on
which such licence or equired or the licence expires.
((5A) The license once granted under this section shall
remain in force for a period of five years and shall be
renewed without any application on payment of the
prescribed fee, thirty days before the end of validity of
the licence for a further period of five years).
(6) If the order on an application for any licence or
permission are not communicated to the applicant
within thirty days after the receipt of the application by
the Secretary or within such longer period, as may be
prescribed in any class of cases the application shall be
deemed to have been allowed for the period required in
the application, subject to the Act, rules and bye-laws
and all conditions which would have been ordinary
imposed.)
21. As per the provisions of sub Section 6 of 447, it is
clear that in case there is no decision in the application for
renewal within 30 days, it is deemed to have been renewed. It
is in that background, the learned Single Judge ordered for
renewal. Thus we are in agreement with the findings of the
learned Single Bench issuing directions to the Municipal
2025:KER:49387
WA NO. 1407 OF 2024
20
Corporation to issue licence deemed to have been renewed in
the absence of any communication either accepting, rejecting
within the period prescribed under sub Section 6 of Section
447 of the Act. Accordingly, we dismiss the aforementioned
writ appeal leaving the parties to seek the adjudication of the
grievance inter se the dispute qua the partnership or
otherwise in competent court of law or through the mediation
settlement but for the purpose of adjudication of the present
intra court appeal ie., pertaining to issuance of licence, parties
cannot be left at the peril, either of the parties as well as of
the Municipal Corporation to carry on the business as it would
be the violation of fundamental right of Article 19(1)(g) as well
as Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The doors locked by
the Municipality are ordered to be broken forthwith.
Sd/-
AMIT RAWAL
JUDGE
sd/-
sab P. V. BALAKRISHNAN
JUDGE
2025:KER:49387
WA NO. 1407 OF 2024
21
APPENDIX OF WA 1407/2024
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A1 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED EXECUTED ON
28.12.2010 AND REGISTERED ON 19.01.2011
AS REGISTERED DOCUMENT NO. 68/2011
Annexure A2 TRUE COPY OF THE PARTNERSHIP DEED DATED
10.8.2018
Annexure A3 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED
27.11.2023
Annexure A4 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED
29/09/2023
Annexure A5 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED
21/08/2023 ALONG WITH THE RELEVANT NOTE
FILE SEEKING RENEWAL OF LICENSE
Annexure A5(a) TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SEEKING
ISSUANCE OF FRESH LICENSE DATED
15/09/2023 ALONG WITH THE NOTE FILE
Annexure-A True copy of the order of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court dated 7.5.2025 in Special
Leave to Appeal (C) No. 22100 of 2024
[ad_2]
Source link