BYJU K THOMAS Vs. ELOOR MUNICIPALITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) That the petitioner submitted an application dated 01.06.2020 before the 2nd respondent for trade licence of his business establishment by name "Tricon Building Products (I) PVT Ltd" at a building by name "Vadakal Estate" in door No. 11/207 and 208 (old number 6/363U, 363C) of Eloor municipality. The said application of petitioner was not received by the 2 nd respondent on the ground that there are arrears from the owners of building, Mr. V.T.Thomas and Meena Thomas, to the Municipality. When the petitioner informed the above matter to the owners of building they approached the 2nd respondent and requested to issue trade licence since the alleged assessment and demand were without notice and without hearing them. But the 2nd respondent did not heed their request and hence the owners of building approached this court with Writ Petition No. 10956/2020 and in the said writ petition by Ext.P2 judgment dated 04.06.2020 this Court set- aside the illegal demand notices issued by the 2 nd respondent and remitted the matter for reconsideration after notice to the owners of the building. It is further directed in exhibit-P2 that the application for renewal of warehouse licence of owners of building shall be considered and necessary permission would be issued within a reasonable time. After receipt of copy of said judgment the petitioner again approached the 2 nd respondent and submitted Ext.P1 application along with Ext.P3 request dated 09.06.2020. After receipt of Ext.P1 and Ext.P3 the 2nd respondent informed that he will never consider the application of the petitioner without payment alleged due by the owners of building. When the petitioner informed about Ext.P2 judgment, the office of the 2nd respondent informed that the direction in Ext.P2 is only in connection with the grievance of the owners of the building and the direction is to renew warehouse licence in which the petitioner is not a party and there is no direction to issue trade licence to the petitioner. But no written communication regarding the same was issued to the petitioner. There is no due from the petitioner to the respondents. The non-issuance of trade licence is not a remedy for the alleged dues from the building owners. It is in the light of the above averments and contentions that the petitioner has filed the instant Writ Petition (Civil) with the following prayers:

(2.) Heard Sri.P.M.Ziraj, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.K.S. Arunkumar, learned standing counsel for the Eloor Municipality appearing for the respondents.

(3.) It is the case of the petitioner that he has taken on rent a portion of a commercial building owned by a third party for conduct of his trade and business of dealing with building products and he has duly submitted Ext.P1 application dated 01.06.2020 before the 2 nd respondent, Secretary of Eloor Municipality for grant of trade licence as per the provisions of the Kerala Panchayt Raj Act and the Rules framed thereunder. That the petitioner has also produced consent of the building owners / landlord, as the application for the trade licence has been made for the first time. Further that the petitioner could reliably learn that the 2nd respondent is taking his stand that as there are building property tax dues from the land owners concerned in respect of the subject building, the application of the petitioner for grant of trade licence to conduct his business in the said building will not be considered. That the demand for the arrears of such amounts was challenged by the building owners by filing W.P.(C) No.10956 of 2020 before this court, in which this Court has rendered Ext.P2 judgment on 04. 06.2020 holding that the impugned demand has not been made after taking into account the objections of the petitioner and that accordingly the impugned demand was quashed and matter has been remitted to the 2nd respondent Secretary of the Eloor Municipality for reconsideration of the matter. Further that petitioner has also now submitted Ext.P3 request dated 09.06.2020 for grant of licence as sought for in Ext.P1 and Ext.P4 is a receipt issued by the office of the 2 nd respondent evidencing the receipt of Ext.P3 request. It is the specific case of the petitioner that the 2nd respondent does not have the jurisdiction to deny trade licence to a party like the petitioner on the ground that the landlord of the building has still pending dues to be paid to the respondent Municipality and that in such cases, it is for the respondent Municipality Authorities to proceed as per law and if payments are not made by the defaulting building owner, then it will be open to the respondent Municipality Authorities to take steps for recovery of such amounts in the manner known to law. On the ground that there are pending dues to be cleared by the building owner, there is no question of denial of trade licence to the lessee who is in occupation of the building, for conduct of his trade and that the said two issues are separate and distinct.