The court emphasizes the necessity of fair hearing and reconsideration in administrative decisions impacting business licenses.

JUDGMENT

This writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:

“i) to issue a Writ of Certiorari or such other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing Ext. P5 Order No. SC1- 8769/222 dated 2-12-2022 issued by the 3^rd respondent as it is arbitrary and illegal;

ii) to issue a Writ of Mandamus or order or direction to the 3^rd respondent to renew D & O licenses to business in the petitioner’s shop rooms since the businesses have been conducting from 2018 onwards and taxes are being collected even on 20-09-2022;

iii) to declare that the petitioner is entitled to carry on the business since the businesses are legal in the respective shop rooms and in accordance with the D & O licenses;

iv) to issue such other appropriate Writ, Order or direction as is deemed just and necessary in the circumstances of the case.

v) It is humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to dispense with filing of the translation of vernacular documents.”[SIC]

2. The petitioner filed the Writ Petition originally challenging Ext.P5 order passed by the 3^rd respondent stating that the proceedings of Section 235 W of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 will be initiated. According to the petitioner, the defects noted in Ext.P5 were cured by the petitioner and thereafter the petitioner submitted Ext.P7. The same was also rejected as per Ext.P8, is the submission. The petitioner is also aggrieved because Ext.P3 proceedings which leads to Ext.P5 was also passed without hearing the petitioner. The petitioner relied on the judgment of this Court in W.P.(C) No.12993 of 2024 dated 11.09.2024.

Hence, this Writ Petition is filed.

3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Panchayat.

4. This Court in the judgment dated 11.09.2024 in W.P.(C) No.12993 of 2024 observed like this: “4. The learned counsel for the petitioners also relies on the judgments of this Court reported in Bahseer v. Meenangadi Grama Panchyat [2022(4) KLT Online 1255], Mohammed Habeebulla and Others v. Corporation of Cochin and Another [ 2021 (3) KHC 201 ] and Narahari Rao v. State of Kerala and Others [ 1999 KHC 36 ], for substantiating the contention that as long as the petitioners constructed the building in terms of the building permit granted, the respondent Panchayat could not have refused to grant the occupancy certificate. At any rate, the violation is trivial, as the difference in height is only 14 cm from the ground.”

5. The definite case of the petitioner is that a building permit was issued originally, and the construction was also completed in accordance with the building permit, and the building numbers were also allotted. According to the petitioner, the respondent Panchayat cannot refuse occupancy in the light of the observations in the judgment dated 11.09.2024 in W.P.(C) No.12993 of 2024. I think there is some force in the argument of the petitioner. I am of the considered opinion that the Panchayat has to reconsider the matter. To facilitate the Panchayat to reconsider the matter, Exts.P5 and P8 can be set aside.

Therefore, this Writ Petition is disposed of in the following manner:

1. Exts.P5 and P8 are set aside.

2. The 3^rd respondent is directed to reconsider the matter in the light of the observations in the judgment dated 11.09.2024 in W.P.(C) No.12993 of 2024, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and other affected parties, if any, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.

3. All the contentions raised by the petitioner in this Writ Petition are left open, and the petitioner is free to agitate the same before the 3^rd respondent.

Sd