The court mandates timely action by municipal authorities to consider applications for licenses while ensuring fairness and avoidance of prejudice.

JUDGMENT

The above writ petition is filed with the following prayers:

“(i) Issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to allot fish stall in the Public Market, Ernakulam to the petitioner and issue necessary license to the petitioner to conduct fish sale business there;

(ii) Dispense with filing of the translation of vernacular documents;

and (iii) Pass such other orders as this Honourable Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.” (SIC)

2. It is submitted that the petitioner’s father was doing fish vending business in Stall No.112 at Ernakulam Public Market. The father of the petitioner died. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent Corporation refused to renew the license in favour of the petitioner after his father’s death and the petitioner approached this Court with a writ petition and this Court disposed of that writ petition with certain directions as evident by Ext.P2 judgment.

3. According to the petitioner, license were renewed every year and the respondent Corporation delayed the renewal in 2018. The 2^nd respondent served a letter intimating that, the petitioner was not issued with license to sell fish at Stall No.112 and the Corporation was unable to issue any D&O license to the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted a representation to the 2^nd respondent to renew Ext.P3 license for No.112 of Ernakulam Public Market. The 3^rd respondent issued a notice rejecting Ext.P5 representation of the petitioner showing that no fish stall had been allotted to the petitioner and Stall No.112 was not in existence. Thereafter, this Court as per Ext.P15 judgment set aside Ext.P4 and directed the 2^nd respondent to reconsider the petitioner’s application for D&O license. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted Ext.P16 representation before the 2^nd respondent to redress his grievance. Even then, there is no action is the submission. Hence, this writ petition is filed.

4. Heard, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation.

5. This Court perused Ext.P15 judgment. It will be better to extract the relevant portion of the same:

“7. Resultantly, I set aside Ext.P4; and consequentially, direct the Secretary of the Corporation to reconsider the petitioner's application for D & O licence, adverting to Exts.P8 to P14 receipts; and if, for any reason, it is found not possible to accommodate him in the stall which he now claims, a decision may be taken to accommodate in another area, without causing any prejudice or detriment to any other person or to public health, so as to enable him to eke out his livelihood, particularly taking note of the fact that he is stated to be now suffering from debilitating deceases and urgently requires an avocation to sustain himself.

The afore shall be done by the Secretary of the Corporation, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, as expeditiously as is possible, but not later than two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment; for which purpose, I direct the petitioner to mark appearance in the office of the Secretary at 11 a.m. on 25.11.2019, on which day he shall be heard and the Secretary shall then take an appropriate decision within the period afore fixed.

This writ petition thus ordered.”

6. When this writ petition came up for consideration before this Court on 18.02.2026, this Court directed the Standing Counsel for the Corporation to get instruction whether any consequential order is passed after Ext.P15 judgment. The Standing Counsel, after getting instruction submitted that, no orders are passed after Ext.P15. If that be the case, the Corporation has to pass appropriate orders as dir