Reena Kurian vs. Perumbavoor Municipality
Original PDF →No AI summary yet for this judgment.
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
JUDGMENT This writ petition has been filed by petitioners 1 and 2 asserting that they are partners of the 3rd the petitioner-M/s Choice Gold Finance and they impugn Exts.P12 and P13, as per which, the Municipality has asked them to stop their money lending business. The petitioners say that Exts.P12 and P13 orders of the Municipality are vitiated and therefore, illegal and unlawful; and consequently pray that the same be set aside and they be allowed to continue with their business.
The learned Counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent says that his client is the owner of the building in question where the business is being carried on by the petitioners and that he has objected to the Municipality against them continuing the business for various reasons. He says that the primary among
WP(C).No.27168 OF 2019 3 them is that the licence obtained by the 2nd petitioner from the Commercial Taxes Department, Government of Kerala, namely Ext.P4, has expired as early as on 01/03/2019 and for the other that instead of the 2nd petitioner conducting the business, he has sublet the building to the 3rd petitioner, which is stated to be a partnership firm in which he is also a partner, and that the said firm is illegally conducting the business on the strength of Ext.P4 licence. The learned counsel says that the activities of the petitioners, therefore, are illegal and that the Secretary of the Municipality was right in issuing Exts.P12 and P13 orders.
The learned Standing Counsel for the Municipality submits that, as is evident from Exts.P12 and P13, the Petitioners have clearly informed that a commercial activity in the building in question can be conducted only with the WP(C).No.27168 OF 2019 4 permission of the 3rd respondent and that too, on the strength of all valid licences and consents He says that the Trade Licence for the petitioners has not been issued or renewed and therefore, that they have been notified through Ext.P13 that any continuation of their business in the property in question will be at their risk and cost. He, therefore, prays that this writ petition be dismissed.
I have considered the afore submissions and have examined Exts.P12 and P13 orders.
As rightly pointed out by the learned Standing Counsel for the Municipality, Exts.P12 and P13 only caution the petitioners from conducting a business without proper licence. I cannot, therefore, find fault with the said orders; but am also aware that the contention of the petitioners is that the Municipality is refusing to issue them
WP(C).No.27168 OF 2019 5 licence solely on account of the non obtention of “No Objection Certificate” (NOC) from the 3rd respondent landlord. The learned counsel for petitioners, no doubt, argues that it has been well settled by this Court that for the purpose of renewal of a Trade Licence, a NOC of the landlord is not necessary.
However, the real issue is whether the petitioners are entitled to assert so, and whether they have all other requisite licences and permissions before they can seek a Trade Licence from the Municipality
In this regard, I prima facie find favour with the submissions, of the learned counsel for the 3rd respondent that the business, being carried on by the 3rd petitioner, appears to be on the strength of a licence obtained by the 2nd petitioner in his own name; and hence whether this is legal or otherwise will have to be decided by the competent
WP(C).No.27168 OF 2019 6 Authority when the petitioners apply for renewal of the same.
As matters now stand, it is obvious that the petitioners do not have any licence even under the applicable Tax Laws and therefore, they cannot continue their business of money lending on the strength of Ext.P4 licence, which has now expired. The question whether they could have used Ext.P4, even while it was in force, is a matter that will have to be decided by the competent Authority of Taxes Department. Resultantly and since I find that the petitioners are now operating their business without any requisite licence including the Trade Licence, I dismiss this writ petition; however, leaving liberty to the petitioners to approach the competent Authorities for renewal of their licences; and to thereafter approach the Secretary of the Municipality, who will
WP(C).No.27168 OF 2019 7 then take a decision as to their Trade Licence, based on all relevant and applicable inputs and after hearing the petitioners as well as the 3rd respondent. DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE MC/14.11.19
WP(C).No.27168 OF 2019 8 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1OF THE AGREEMENT DTD. 02.06.2018. EXHIBIT P2OF THE RENT DEED DATED 08.08.2018. EXHIBIT P3OF THE DEED OF PARTNERSHIP DTD. 14.08.2018. EXHIBIT P4OF THE MONEY LENDING LICENSE NUMBER 32151102952 DTD. 25.10.2018 ISSUED BY THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER STATE GOODS AND SERVICES TAX DEPARTMENT, MOOVATTUPUZHA. EXHIBIT P5OF THE MONEY ORDER RECEIPT DTD. 24.09.2019. EXHIBIT P6OF THE RENTAL RECEIPT DTD. 05.07.2019. EXHIBIT P7OF THE NOTICE NO. PH2-9415/2019 DTD. 15.07.2019 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P8OF THE EXPLANATION DTD. 24.07.2019 TO EXHIBIT P7 NOTICE. EXHIBIT P9OF THE LAWYER NOTICE DATED 03.08.2019. EXHIBIT P10OF THE REPLY NOTICE DATED 29.08.2019. EXHIBIT P11OF THE APPLICATION DTD. 20.08.2019 FILED BY THE 1ST AND 2ND PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P12OF THE NOTICE DATED 02.09.2019. EXHIBIT P13OF THE INTIMATION DATED 27.09.2019 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS: NIL MC
() PA TO JUDGE
Reproduced from the public record of the Kerala High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.