Judicial review emphasizes procedural fairness in administrative decisions, allowing the petitioner the right to object and seek a license after a denial.

JUDGMENT

The above writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:

“1. To call for the records pursuant to Exhibit P11 and to quash the same by issuing a Writ of Certiorari.

2. To direct respondents 1 and 2 to effect the necessary changes in occupancy of the building and to grant license for lodging business in view of Exhibit P4 and Exhibit P8 along with binding precedents declared by Hon’ble Supreme Court and this Hon’ble Court .

3. Such other orders deem fit on facts and in the interest of justice.” [SIC]

2. According to the petitioner, he is the tenant of the 3^rd respondent and conducting a home stay and service villa within the limits of the 1^st respondent Panchayath. It is submitted that the petitioner during 21.06.2022 executed a tenancy agreement with 3^rd respondent for the purpose of conducting business namely home stay / container home /

POD for a term of 11 months which can be extended on specific terms and conditions is the submission. The petitioner in order to conduct the business submitted Ext.P9 application for license with supporting documents is the another submission. Now, Ext.P11 is issued by the Panchayath rejecting the application of the petitioner.

Hence, this Writ Petition is filed.

3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the Standing Counsel appearing for the Panchayath and also the counsel appearing for respondent Nos.3 to 5.

4. When this Writ Petition came up for consideration on 03.04.2025, this Court passed the following order:

“Admit. Sri. R. Azad Babu the learned Standing Counsel takes notice for the 1^st and 2^nd respondents. Issue urgent notice by speed post for the respondnets 3 to 5. The respondents shall file statement / counter affidavit within three weeks. Post immediately after service.

There shall be an interim order directing the 1^st and 2^nd respondent not to initiate coercive proceedings against the petitioner for non-renewal of license for a period of two months.”

5. The counsel for the petitioner raised several contentions before this Court. The same is contradicted by the counsel appearing for respondent Nos.3 to 5. I don’t want to take a decision on those contentions. Now this Court already passed an interim order which is extracted above. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner can be allowed to submit his objection to Ext.P11 before the Panchayath within a time frame and there can be a direction to consider the same and till then the interim order can continue. While deciding the matter, the Panchayath will also consider the dictum laid down by the Apex Court in Sudhakaran v. Corporation of Trivandrum and Another ( 2016 (3) KHC 803 ).

Therefore, this Writ Petition(C) is disposed of with the following directions:

1. The petitioner is free to file his objection to Ext.P11 before the 2^nd respondent, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.

2. Once such an objection is received, the 2^nd respondent will consider the same, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and respondent Nos.3 to 5, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the objection.

3. While deciding the matter, the 2^nd respondent will also consider the dictum laid down by the Apex Court in Sudhakaran’s case (supra).

4. Till final orders are passed in the objection, the interim order dated 03.04.2025 will continue.