The right to carry on business is a fundamental right subject to reasonable restrictions in the interest of the general public. The duty to issue and not to revoke a licence except for a good legal reason must be upheld.

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 in 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:

"The drain starts from the front portion of the shed mentioned in Ext.P2. It proceeds to north and then to westwards and again turns to north and steps at a point 20 feet to the south of the northern compound wall. There is an exit from the drain. I am told that the water is drained off, to tanks underground. If there is no block for the flow of filthy water to the underground tank, one can only say that the arrangement to drain off the filthy water is asst is factory.... The proprietor of "Root tailoring' a shop which is situate on the northern side of the road on the north of the petitioner's compound requested me to have a look from the road on the north. I went to the road and noted what he said. the complained that the filthy water used to be drained off to the road and that it was emanating foul smell. I enquired of the 1 health Inspector about this allegation. I was told that he had complained to the Municipality, that the Municipality took action on the complaint and that it was pursuant to the said action that the draining of the water to the tank underground was resorted to. The Proprietor Root Tailoring told me that the people of the locality had to close the opening of the road and prevent the flow of water to the road. Whatever that be. the alleged nuisance stands abated."

On a consideration of the Commissioner's report and after hearing the petitioner and the respondent, this court permitted the petitioner to carry on his business of storing of hides and skins in the premises in question and the petitioner is continuing the said business pursuant to the orders of this court, even as on today.

4. The petitioner's main grievance as ventilated in page 8 of the amended Original Petition is that he has singled out for hostile discrimination