(1.) The 1st petitioner is a Co-operative Society, registered under the provisions of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, and the 2nd petitioner is the Managing Director of the Consumerfed. It is the case in the writ petition that, the Consumerfed was conducting 39 IMFL retail outlets in different parts of the State and, on account of an order by the Supreme Court prohibiting the sale of liquor within 500 mtrs of the highways in the country, the FL 1 shop, that was earlier functioning in Ettumanoor Range, had to be shifted to another location. Accordingly, the 1st petitioner shifted the premises of the shop to a new area and thereafter, preferred an application for the issuance of a D and O license for carrying on the trade activities from the said premises. In the writ petition, the petitioners are aggrieved by Ext.P7 stop memo, that has been issued by the respondent Municipality, preventing the petitioners from carrying on business activities from the new premises. The case of the petitioners in the writ petition against Ext.P7 is essentially that, Ext.P7 refers to a decision dated 23.03.2017, taken by the Municipality council and the Secretary, who issued Ext.P7 stop memo, felt himself bound to issue the same, on account of the decision taken by the council of the Municipality. It is pointed out that, the said decision of the Municipal council, was taken without hearing the petitioner.
(2.) I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Standing counsel for the respondent Municipality and the learned Senior counsel appearing for the additional 5th respondent.
(3.) On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made across the bar, and finding that Ext.P7 stop memo was issued to the petitioners without hearing them and by relying on a decision of the Municipal Council, that was passed without hearing the petitioner, I dispose the writ petition, with the following directions: