The Court upheld that a decision previously made by a Municipality, regarding license issuance without an applied distance rule, creates an estoppel against reconsideration of that same ground in renewal applications.

K.NATARAJAN, J.

This Writ Appeal is filed against the judgment dated 10.02.2023, passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(C) No. 9962 of 2021.

2. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants, the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent, and the learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the second respondent.

3. The case of the appellants, namely the Mananthavady Municipality, its Secretary and the Assistant Engineer, is that the first respondent herein had submitted an application for renewal of the Trade License to run a fish stall within the limits of the Municipality. The said application came to be rejected by the Municipality. Aggrieved by the rejection of the license, the first respondent approached this Court earlier by filing W.P.(C) No.30755 of 2019. By judgment dated 16.11.2019, the learned Single Judge directed the Municipality to reconsider the application within a time-bound manner.

4. According to the first respondent, the Municipality failed to comply with the said directions within the time stipulated. Consequently, the first respondent initiated Contempt Case No.377 of 2020, which was disposed on 02-03-2020. Then Municipality issued a Trade License to the first respondent on 03.12.2020 for a period of three months, valid till the expiry of the financial year on 31.03.2021.

5 Prior to the expiry of the said period, the .

first respondent submitted another application dated 03.03.2021 seeking renewal of the license. However, the said application was rejected by the Municipality. Aggrieved by the said rejection, the first respondent approached the learned Single Judge of this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.9962 of 2021. 6 The learned Single Judge considered the .

matter and passed the impugned judgment directing the second appellant/Secretary of the Municipality to reconsider the application submitted by the first respondent and to issue the Trade License if the first respondent if otherwise found eligible. Being aggrieved by the said judgment, the appellants/Municipality have preferred the present Writ Appeal.

7. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants contended that the issuance of Trade License is governed by the bye-laws of the Municipality framed under Section 567 of the Kerala Municipality Act . It is submitted that as per Clause 82 of the relevant bye-law, a fish stall cannot be permitted to function within a radius of 3 kilometres from the Municipal Fish Market. According to the appellants, the first respondent had applied for running the fish stall within the said prohibited distance and therefore he is not entitled to renewal of the license. It is further contended that the learned Single Judge erred in directing the appellants to reconsider the application and that the observations made in paragraphs 10 and 11 of the judgment are contrary to the provisions contained in the bye-laws.

8. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent vehemently opposed the Writ Appeal. It is submitted that in another case, an applicant had approached this Court by filing W.P(C) No.34563 of 2022 challenging the rejection of license for running a fish stall and pursuant to the order passed by the learned Single Judge in that case, the Municipality had granted the license. It is further contended that though an appeal was filed by the Municipality in the said matter, the same was later closed as the Municipality accepted the decision and granted the license, upon payment of the prescribed amount. The learned counsel for the first respondent further submitted that in the present case the respondent had already been granted the license by the Municipality pursuant to the orders passed by the learned Single Judge in the earlier Writ petition. Therefore, the pres