THOMAS JOSEPH Vs. CHANGANACHERRY MUNICIPALITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this Original Petition the petitioner seeks for the issuance of a writ of certiorari to quash Ext. P2 and for the issuance of a writ of mandamus directing, the respondents to order renewal of licence for conducting the business of storing of hides and skins in Building No.26/241 of Changanacherry Municipality and for other incidental reliefs.

(2.) The petitioner is engaged in the business of storing hides and skins in building No.126/241 measuring an extent of 35 cents within the Changanacherry Municipality. He has been continuing the said business since 1979. In the year 1989-90 the petitioner submitted an application for renewal of his licence to the respondent after making the requisite deposit of Rs. 100/-. On receipt of the application for renewal, the respondent issued Ext. P2 stating that the request for renewal cannot be granted on the ground that the petitioner is engaged in the business of processing of hides and skins emanating foul smell thereby causing nuisance to the people of the locality. On receipt of Ext. P2 the. petitioner filed Ext. P3 reply stating that he is not engaged in the business of processing of hides and skins and that storage alone is done in proper conditions and that no foul smell is emanating from the premises which can be verified by on the spot inspection. But at the same time apprehending that the respondent will take action against the petitioner, he approached this court with the instant Original petition praying for the reliefs mentioned above.

(3.) This court by an interim order dated 31-3-1989 after hearing the parties, appointed a Commissioner to inspect the site to ascertain whether any processing of hides and skins is being carried on in the premises and to ascertain whether the storing of the hides and skins causes any nuisance by way of foul smell or otherwise in the locality and also to ascertain the location and importance of the place where the building is situate and such other matters which either side may request the Commission to note. Pursuant to the order issued by this court, the advocate commissioner inspected the premises in question and submitted a detailed report wherein it has been stated among other things, as follows: