REGI JOSE Vs. MUNICIPAL CHAIRPERSON

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner had a licence to run a business in room No.VIII/52 of Pala Municipality, of which, the 1st respondent is the Chairperson and the 2nd respondent is the Municipal Secretary. THE petitioner wanted renewal of the licence for the year 2007-08. That was rejected on the ground that the petitioner did not produce consent from the landlord of the shop room. THE petitioner filed an appeal, which was dismissed, by Ext.P6 order, on the same ground. THE petitioner approached this Court and obtained Ext.P7 judgment, in which, this Court categorically held that in view of the decision of this Court in Marimuthu v. Director General of Police [1999 (3) KLT 662], for renewal of licence, no consent from the landlord is necessary. Subsequently, Ext.P9 order was passed by the 2nd respondent granting renewal of licence to the petitioner for shop room No.VIII/52(1). THE petitioner is challenging that part of Ext.P9 order where the number of the shop room is shown as VIII/52(1) instead of VIII/52. Now the dispute in this writ petition revolves round the question as to whether the petitioner is entitled to renewal of licence for shop room No.VIII/52 instead of shop room No.VIII/52 (1).

(2.) THE contention of the respondents is that after grant of licence to the petitioner earlier, there was a renumbering since the petitioner's shop room was part of a larger room consisting of two parts, which were not separately numbered and consequently, the portion occupied by the petitioner was renumbered as VIII/52(1) and the other part was retained as VIII/52.