The court ruled that the Municipality must consider the petitioner's application for business operation while ensuring no coercive action until the review is complete.

JUDGMENT

The above Writ Petition (C) is filed with the following prayers:

"i) Quash Exhibit-P6 issuing a writ in the nature of certiorari;

ii) Declare that the action of the second respondent cancelling the trade license issued for door number

41/1996 is illegal;

iii) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the second respondent to consider Exhibit-P10 and permit the Petitioner to continue his business in door numbers 41/1996, 41/2059, 41/2060, 41/2061, 41/2001, 41/2000, 41/1999 having a total area of 16691 ft² and situated in immovable property having an extent of 0.1422 hectors in Re-Survey No. 148 of Palakkad-1 Village;

iv) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding Respondents 1 & 2 restraining them from closing down the business functioning in building bearing Door Number 41/1996 in the first respondent municipality;

v) Dispense with the translated copies of the documents in vernacular; and vi) Issue such other writ, order or direction is this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper on the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice. "

[SIC]

2. The petitioner is a tenant conducting a retail textile business in a commercial building owned by the 3^rd respondent, within the limits of the 1^st respondent-Municipality. The petitioner obtained a valid trade license covering several shop rooms including Door No.41/1996. It is the case of the petitioner that the Municipality had issued a revised license excluding the door number 41/1996, without issuing any prior notice or affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Later, the petitioner was served with Ext.P6 notice, alleging that the business conducted in Door No.41/1996 was unauthorized on the ground that the building is described as an auditorium in municipal records. It is submitted that the 3^rd respondent, who is the landlord is regularly paying property tax and the same has been accepted by the Municipality also. The incorrect description in records relates to the period when the landlord had previously operated an auditorium, which was discontinued in 2022, is the submission. It is also the case of the petitioner that the landlord had already applied for correction of the building usage category, as evident by Ext.P9. Thereafter, the petitioner also submitted an application, as evident by Ext.P10. Subsequent stand that the correction cannot be considered due to the land being classified as ‘Nilam’ in revenue records is unsustainable is the submission. Hence, this writ petition.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Municipality. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Municipality seeks time to get instruction. But, I am on the considered opinion that, no instruction is necessary, because of the manner in which this writ petition is going to be disposed of. Similarly, no notice is necessary to the 3^rd respondent also. If the 3^rd respondent is aggrieved by any of the directions issued by this Court, the 3^rd respondent is free to file review petition before this Court.

3. Admittedly, the petitioner obtained license for the shop rooms including Door No.41/1996, as evident by Ext.P4. Subsequently, the landlord submitted Ext.P9 application for change of category. The petitioner also submitted Ext.P10. The petitioner is conducting a retail textile shop. This Court perused Ext.P3 photographs. If any coercive steps is taken now that may create problems to the petitioner. Therefore, I think there can be a direction to consider Ext.P10 by the Municipality, and till then coercive steps against the petitioner can be kept in abeyance.

Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of with the following directions:

i) The 2^nd respondent is directed to consider Ext.P10, and pass appropriate orders in it, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the pe