High Court Kerala High Court

O.G.Sasidharan vs The Govt.Secretary on 24 April, 2009

Kerala High Court
O.G.Sasidharan vs The Govt.Secretary on 24 April, 2009
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 12701 of 2009(G)


1. O.G.SASIDHARAN,AGED 56 YEARS,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE GOVT.SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF LOCAL
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE CORPORATION OF COCHIN, REP.BY ITS

3. T.K.ARAVINDAKSHAN,AGED 68 YEARS,

4. T.K.BHAMINI, AGED 62 YEARS,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.B.RAJEEV KOYICKAL

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.K.MOHANAN

 Dated :24/04/2009

 O R D E R
                         V.K.MOHANAN, J.
                    ---------------------------------------
                   W.P.(C) No.12701 OF 2009
                    ---------------------------------------
              Dated this the 24th day of April, 2009


                             JUDGMENT

The petitioner is the owner of the shop in the name and

style ‘Santhivision Optics’ in the building No.C.C.XXX/1010

(Old No.XXX/227 2-A). According to the petitioner, for starting

a cycle shop in the said premises, he had applied for licence

from the Corporation for which he had remitted licence fee

and the professional tax as evidenced by Ext.P1. The grievance

of the petitioner is that thereafter, no licence has issued by the

Corporation. Therefore, he approached this court with a

prayer to issue a writ of mandamus directing the Corporation

to issue licence as prayed for.

2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as

well as the learned Standing Counsel for the Cochin

Corporation.

3. As the request for licence is pending before the

second respondent, who is the authority to consider the

request on merit and to grant the same if the petitioner is

otherwise entitled, I am not proposed to enter into the finding

W.P.(C) No.12701 of 2009
2

on merit. On the other hand, I am of the view that this writ

petition can be disposed of directing the second respondent to

dispose of Ext.P6.

4. In the result, this writ petition is disposed of

directing the second respondent to take up Ext.P6

representation after giving an opportunity of being heard to

the petitioner as well as the respondents 3 and 4. The second

respondent is further directed to dispose of the same within

one month from the date of production of copy of this

judgment by the petitioner.

The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

V.K.MOHANAN
JUDGE

pac