IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 15281 of 2008(T)
1. BENNY KURIAKOSE, S/O.KURIAKOSE,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. KOTHAMANGALAM MUNICIPALITY,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.S.VINOD BHAT
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :23/05/2008
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
W.P.(C) No. 15281 of 2008-T
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Dated this the 23rd day of May, 2008
J U D G M E N T
The prayer sought for in this writ petition is to quash Ext.P2
by which the Municipality has refused the renewal of licence that
has been granted to the petitioner.
2. Petitioner was carrying on retreading business in one of
the shed under his occupation. However, as he had not obtained
clearance certificate from the Pollution Control Board, which fact
is not in dispute, licence has been declined to be renewed.
3. Petitioner submits that he could not comply with the
standards specified by the Board. As and when he had made an
attempt to improve the standards the Landlord obtained an order
of injunction from the Civil Court, as a result of which petitioner
was prevented from continuing the works. In the meanwhile,
petitioner also submits that the shed where the retreading
machinery was installed has also been demolished by the
respondent Municipality.
4. In such circumstances, Ext.P2 cannot be faulted.
5. However, now, the learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that in view of the fact that the shed itself has been
W.P.(C).No.15281/2008-T
-: 2 :-
demolished petitioner has no proposal to continue retreading
business but has to carry on the other business which is stated to
have been already there.
6. Even if the above submission of the petitioner is to be
accepted and the Municipality is to be directed to consider the
application reckoning the purpose of licence as business other than
retreading, that purpose ought to have been made known to the
Municipality in the application submitted. Since the purpose as
indicated is only retreading and that business is no longer there, it
may not be proper for this court to direct the Municipality to
consider the application that lead to Ext.P2. Therefore, the proper
course would be to permit the petitioner to make a fresh
application and it is ordered accordingly. If such an application is
made, it will be for the Municipality to consider the said application
in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders thereon.
7. Petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment before
the respondent for compliance.
Writ petition is disposed of as above.
ANTONY DOMINIC,
Judge
ms