Prince Mathew vs The District Collector on 20 August, 2025

0
66

This writ petition is preferred, being aggrieved by the

denial of permission to shift the Armoury shop from its existing

location to a new premises. In this regard, the petitioners

submitted an application before the 1 st respondent, the District

Collector. A legal opinion was also obtained by the District

Administrator was in favour of the petitioners. The landlord has

consented to the shifting of the shop from the existing building

to the new premises.

2. It is the case of the petitioners that petitioners are

conducting the Armoury shop with license since 1992 on a

rented premises. The arms license granted to the petitioners

were being renewed till 26.08.2008. Thereafter, though the

petitioners preferred application for renewal till 2015, it was

not rejected or refused. However, in 2015 the renewal

application was sent for enquiry by 1 st respondent to

respondents 2 and 3. in the absence of time bound reply, 1 st

respondent sent a remainder calling for the report. However,

during the pendency of renewal application, the landlord of the

building, who is the additional 6th respondent requested the
2025:KER:63001
WP(C) NO. 18847 OF 2017

petitioners for a vacant possession. Accordingly, the

petitioners sought permission to shift the Armoury shop from

the licensed premises to new place, from respondent 1.

[ad_1]

Source link

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here