Absence of landlord's consent is not required for D&O license renewal when valid tenancy exists; procedural failures in application can be curable.

JUDGMENT

The petitioner is operating a petroleum retail outlet in a building bearing No.6/893 of the Pandalam Municipality situated at Re- Sy.No.189/19. The retail outlet has been functioning from 1960 onwards. Initially, it was being conducted by M/s CALTEX India Limited. During 1970s, the management was taken over by one M/s. United Trading Corporation. Thereafter during 1980s, the Managing Partner of the petitioner firm took over the management of the outlet as dealer of the 4th respondent oil company which had come into existence by then. From 2018, the operation of the outlet is by a firm since the Managing Partner added his son also as a partner. The petitioner claims that the petitioner and the 4th respondent have obtained all the requisite approvals from various competent authorities for the purpose of establishing and running of the retail outlet. Licenses have been obtained from the Municipality, the Controller of Explosives, Fire and Rescue, etc. When the D&O licence issued by the Municipality as Ext.P2 was nearing expiry, the petitioner applied for renewal. Ext.P2(B) is the application dated 1.3.2021, which has been acknowledged by Ext.P2(C) on 5.3.2021. The 1st respondent did not accept the application. The petitioner submitted another application on 3.8.2021 which has been produced as Ext.P3. By Ext.P4 dated 6.8.2021, the application submitted by the petitioner has been rejected by the 2nd respondent. The reasons stated in the order of rejection are failure to affix stamp in the application form and absence of authorisation letter from the 4th respondent and receipt of payment of profession tax. The petitioner was directed to close down the outlet and was threatened with coercive action such as sealing of the outlet. Ext.P5 is the receipt of payment of profession tax and Ext.P5(a) is the receipt for payment of property tax. The Health Inspector Gr.I of the Municipality who has been impleaded as the 3rd respondent affixed Ext.P6 notice of closure in the retail outlet. The writ petition has been filed in the above circumstances praying to quash Exts.P4 and P6 and for a direction to reconsider Ext.P3 application for renewal of the D&O licence.

2. Respondents 1 to 3 have filed a counter affidavit stating that on inspection by the Municipality, it was found that there was no building bearing No.6/893 in the Re-Sy.No.189/19. It is stated that no relevant revenue records have been produced to substantiate the claim. It is stated that in Ext.P2 the petitioner had obtained the licence in 2020 with building bearing No.893/A. It is further stated that the outlet is situated in Re-Sy.No.188/19-2-2 & 188/19-2 comprised in Pandalam Village which was earlier owned by one K.M.Abraham as per the Municipality records. The said K.M.Abraham had entered into a lease agreement with the 4th respondent which had been renewed on 27.11.1992 for a further period of 20 years. It is further stated that as per the provisions of the Municipality law, only the land owner or the legal heir of the deceased land owner or the power of attorney of the original land owner can be mentioned as owner in the assessment register, but due to certain highhanded actions taken by the old Panchayat Office, the column which has to show the name of the owner shows the name of the 4th respondent and thereafter the petitioner in the assessment register. It is stated that the Municipality came to know about the mistake only after the deceased original owner's legal repr