Licensing authorities are not courts and should not adjudicate on document validity; such issues require court intervention.

JUDGMENT

This writ petition is filed with following prayers:

i. Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing Exhibit P-8 and Exhibit P-9 after calling for the records leading thereto.

ii. Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the 2nd respondent to implement Exhibit P-7 order with immediate effect.

iii. Pass such other orders as this Honourable Court deems fit and necessary in the interest of justice and for proper and effective adjudication of the case.

2. First petitioner is the mother of the 2nd petitioner.

The 2nd petitioner is the owner of a building bearing No.III/429 (old No.III/317) of Chengamanad Panchayat, by virtue of a release deed bearing No.5960/2013 dated 26.12.2013 on the file of SRO, Chengamanad. Originally this shop room belonged to Prabhakaran Pillai, husband of the 1st petitioner and father of the 2nd petitioner. Prabhakaran Pillai died in the year 1994 after bequeathing the shop room together with other properties to the 1st petitioner by his last Will bearing No.48/1991 on the file of the SRO, Chengamanad. The said Prabhakaran Pillai let out the said shop room to the 3rd respondent in the year 1985 which was renewed by the lease agreement dated 10.11.1993. It is the case of the petitioners that after the death of Prabhakaran Pillai in 1994 no lease deed was ever executed for renewal of the lease arrangement in respect of the said shop room. It is further stated by the petitioners that after the death of Prabhakaran Pillai, certain disputes were arisen in respect of the lease arrangement in respect of the shop room with the 3rd respondent, which leads to R.C.P.No.17/2005 before the Rent Controller, Aluva, seeking eviction under Section 11 (2)(b) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 . Ext.P1 is the Rent Control Petition and Ext.P2 is the objection dated 07.02.2006 filed by the 3rd respondent. It is the further case of the petitioners that R.C.P.No.37/2011 was also filed seeking eviction of the said shop room on the ground of additional accommodation. The 3rd respondent filed objection dated 19.07.2012, showing that he had been the tenant in respect of the shop room since 1985 on the basis of lease agreement between him and the late Prabhakaran Pillai, husband of the 1st petitioner and that the lease agreement was renewed in 1993 by the 3rd respondent. Ext.P3 is the objection filed in R.C.P.No.37/2011. Meanwhile, it is submitted by the petitioner that the 1st petitioner came to know from the information dated 17.10.2018 issued by the State Public Information Officer, The Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, Mattancherry that the 3rd respondent had forged and fabricated a document as 'vadaka karar' dated 08.05.2003 alleged to have been executed by the 1st petitioner and the 3rd respondent in respect of the shop room fixing monthly rent at Rs.450/- starting from 01.04.2003. Ext.P4 is the information. It is the definite case of the petitioners that the signatures which are claimed to be that of the 1st petitioner in the lease deed mentioned in Ext.P4 are not that of the 1st petitioner. The document forming part of Ext.P4 is apparently and manifestly a forged and fabricated document, the petitioners submit. It is the case of the petitioners that the 3rd respondent forged and fabricated the document forming part of Ext.P4 and on the basis of which the 3rd respondent obtained licence under Section 4 of the Kerala Money Lenders Act, 1958 . Hence the 1st petitioner filed a complaint dated 13.11.2018 before the 2nd respondent against the 3rd respondent to cancel his licence under Section 14 of the Kerala Money Lender Act and to impose penalty under Section 18 of the said Act. Ext.P5 is the complaint. The 3rd respondent filed Ext.P6 objection to the complaint. Thereafter as per Ext.P7 order, the 2nd respondent was pleased to cancel the licence issued to the 3rd respondent under Section 1