Charitable societies are exempt from licensing under the Kerala Places of Public Resort Act when operating for bona fide purposes.

J U D G M E N T

The petitioner is stated to be a charitable society registered under the provisions of the Travancore-Cochin Literary, Scientific and Charitable Societies Registration Act , 1955. The writ petition has been instituted seeking to challenge Ext.P1 issued by the respondent – Municipality proposing to interdict the functioning of the theatre attached to the petitioner – society, essentially pointing out that the petitioner has not obtained a licence under the provisions of the Kerala Places of Public Resort Act , 1963 (for short “Act”).

2. I have heard Ms.Aruna Nandhakumar, representing Sri.R.Sanjith, the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri.K.J. Joy, representing Sri.K.S. Arunkumar, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent – Municipality.

3. The provisions of Section 2 (b) of the Act reads as under:

“place of public resort or entertainment” shall mean any place, enclosure, building, tent, booth or other erection whether permanent or temporary, where music, singing, dancing or any diversion or game or the means of carrying on the same is provided, and to which public are admitted either on payment of money or with the intention that money may be collected from those admitted, otherwise that for bona fide charitable or religious purpose, and shall include a race-course, circus, theatre, music hall, billiard room, bagatelle room, gymnasium and fencing school.”

A reading of the aforesaid definition clause indicates that where an institution is run for bona fide charitable or religious purposes, the provisions of the statute itself stand exempted. If that is so, prima facie, the contention raised by the petitioner that it is not required to obtain a licence as mandated in Ext.P1 appears to be the correct proposition of law. To that extent, the petitioner has already submitted Ext.P2 reply/objection before the respondent-Municipality.

4. This Court further notices that as early as on

03.03.2017, while admitting the writ petition, this Court had permitted the petitioner to reopen and carry on with the activities in the theatre by granting stay against Ext.P1. Ms.Aruna Nandhakumar, the learned counsel for the petitioner, would state that on the basis of the interim order as above, the petitioner is continuing to function with the theatre even as on date.

In the light of the afore, this writ petition would stand disposed of, permitting the petitioner to operate the theatre.

The 2^nd respondent is also directed to consider Ext.P2 representation/reply filed by the petitioner with specific reference to the provisions of the statute referred to above as well as the findings of this Court noticed earlier, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. Needless to say, the petitioner is also to be granted an opportunity of being heard in the matter.

Sd/-