SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 16511

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
PRAMOD.E. – Appellant
Versus
THE CLEAN CITY MANAGER MANANTHAVADY MUNICIPALITY – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 8668 OF 2026



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SHRI.M.SASINDRAN, SHRI.MRINAL CHAND M
For the Respondents: SRI.S.M.PRASANTH

The cancellation of a license requires adherence to due process, including proper notifications and opportunities for the licensee to respond.

Headnote:The petitioner filed a Writ Petition seeking to quash a show-cause notice and declare the cancellation of a license as illegal. The Court determined that since a decision had already been taken to cancel the license, the notice was unnecessary. It directed that the notice be treated as a proper show-cause notice allowing the petitioner to submit objections. The respondents must consider additional document requests within a stipulated time. \n The core issues include the legality of the notice and the operational procedure for license cancellation. The Court concluded that no coercive action would occur based on the notice until the petitioner’s objections are heard. The final order facilitates a procedural review of the petitioner’s license status.

Table of Content
1. petitioner seeks quashing of notice related to license cancellation. (Para 1 , 2)
2. court evaluates need for due process following the issuance of a show-cause notice. (Para 3)

JUDGMENT

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

"i) to issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ, or order to quash Ext.P6.

ii) to declare that the cancellation of license of the petitioner’s shop being conducted as per Ext.P1 license is illegal.

iii) to command the first respondent to issue copies of the documents requested in Ext.P7.

iv) exempt the petitioner from producing the English Translation of Malayalam Exhibits produced along with this writ petition and the petitioner further undertake that they are ready and willing to produce English Translation of Malayalam documents as and when required; v) award cost to the petitioner;

vi) issue any other writ order or direction as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case. "

[SIC]

2. The petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P6 notice issued by the Clean City Manager of the Mananthavady Municipality. This Court perused Ext.P6 notice. It is only a show- cause notice. The contention of the petitioner is that a decision had already been taken by the Municipality and, thereafter, a show-cause notice was issued, hence, there is no purpose in submitting a reply to the same. The counsel also submitted that, he wants certain additional documents, and a request is submitted as evident by Ext.P7. The same is not furnished.

Hence, the writ petition.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Municipality.

4. As I mentioned earlier, Ext.P6 is only a show-

cause notice. But, it is stated in Ext.P6 that, decision is taken by the Council to cancel the licence. After taking a decision to cancel the licence, there is no purpose in issuing a show-cause notice. Therefore, the municipality will treat Ext.P6 as a show- cause notice and the petitioner can be allowed to submit his objection to the same, within a time frame, and also there can be a direction to consider the same, within a time frame. In the meanwhile, Ext.P7 representation submitted by the petitioner also will be considered and necessary documents will be furnished, if there is no legal impediment for supplying the same.

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

i) The respondents will treat Ext.P6 as a show- cause notice and no coercive steps shall be taken based on Ext.P6.

ii) The 1st respondent will furnish necessary documents as requested in Ext.P7, if the same are available and if there is no legal impediment in furnishing the same, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

iii) Thereafter, the petitioner is free to submit his objection to the show-cause notice, within a period of three weeks.

iv) The competent authority of the respondents will thereafter consider the objection, if any, submitted by the petitioner, dehors the reason in Ext.P6, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass appropriate orders in accordance with the law, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the objection.

v) If no objection is submitted as directed above, the respondents can proceed in accordance with the law.

Sd/-

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top