ANOOP VARGHESE Vs. MELOOR GRAMA PANCHAYAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has filed this Writ Petition seeking the following reliefs:

(2.) THE case of the petitioner is that, he had purchased a Theatre from the 2nd respondent as per Ext.P1 sale deed. After the sale deed was duly executed, the 2nd respondent requested the petitioner for permission to conduct the Theatre for a period of six months, which was granted. The period has expired and the petitioner has not renewed his permission. However, in the meantime alleging that Ext.P1 was executed only as security for a loan transaction, on the specific understanding that the property would be re -conveyed to him once the loan amount was repaid, the 2nd respondent has filed O.S.No.569 of 2013 before the Sub Court, Iringalakkuda. The relief sought for in the Suit is re -conveyance of the property. As per Ext.P9 order of temporary injunction, the petitioner has been restrained from forcibly dispossessing the 2nd respondent of the Theatre. The Suit is still pending.

(3.) IN the above circumstances, the 2nd respondent had sought for renewal of his licence to conduct the Theatre. The 1st respondent has by Ext.P13 granted the licence, despite objections preferred by the petitioner. The petitioner contends that being the owner of the property, he had a right to be afforded an opportunity of being heard before Ext.P13 was issued. Such an opportunity not having been afforded, it is contended that Ext.P13 is violative of the principles of Natural Justice and liable to be set aside. Reliance is also placed on a Division Bench decision of this Court in Vamakshy v. State of Kerala [1983 KLT 53]. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, in Philomina v. Executive Officer [1987(2) KLT 89] a Single Bench of this Court has followed the earlier Division Bench decision and held that the owner of the Theatre has a right to be heard. For the above reasons, it is contended that Ext.P13 is liable to be set aside.