Administrative authorities must adhere to the principles of natural justice by providing a hearing before passing adverse orders, and a trade license renewal cannot be denied solely for lack of landlord consent according to established judicial precedents.

JUDGMENT

The above writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:

“(i) call for the records leading to Exhibit P8 and quash the same by issuing a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction;

(ii) issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding 2nd respondent Grama Panchayat to consider Exhibit P3 application and renew the licence without insisting for consent letter of the 5th respondent;

(iii) direct the 2nd respondent to consider Exhibit P3 in the light of the dictum laid down in 2017 (1) KHC 160 (Yahiya Ravuthar K.G. Vs. State of Kerala and others), 2019 (1) KHC 25 (Babu C.S. Vs. C. Vijayan @ Raghavan & others), 2022 (6) KHC 86 (Shajimon C.G. Vs. Chirakkadavu Grama Panchayat) and 2016 (3) KHC 803 (Sudhakaran Vs. Corporation of Trivandrum).

(iv) dispense with filing of the translation of vernacular documents;

(v) issue such other writ, order or direction as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.” [SIC]

2. The petitioner is the proprietor of a hardware shop situated within the territorial jurisdiction of the 2^nd respondent Panchayat is the submission. The 2^nd respondent Panchayat has issued license and the petitioner is conducting the business for the last four decades is the further submission. Ext.P1 is the trade license issued upto 31.03.2024. Even though an application was submitted for renewal of the license, the 2^nd respondent insisted for production of consent letter from the 5^th respondent, who alleged to have purchased the property from the 4^th respondent is the further submission. The petitioner relied the judgment of the Apex Court in Sudhakaran v. Corporation of Trivandrum [2016 (3) KHC 803] and submitted that no consent from the land lord is necessary if the application is for renewal.

3. While so, the 4^th respondent attempted to forcefully evict the petitioner from the shop room and the petitioner approached the Munsiff’s Court, Perambra and Ext.P6 interim injunction order is passed by the Civil Court. Ext.P7 is the report submitted by the Advocate Commissioner appointed in that suit. While so, respondent Nos.3 to 6 came to the shop room and attempted to demolish the building is the grievance of the petitioner. On enquiry, the 2^nd respondent furnished a copy of Ext.P8 communication issued to the 5^th respondent. In Ext.P8 communication, a proceedings initiated by the 1^st respondent District Collector under the Disaster Management Act is referred. But, the same is not referred in the order portion. The petitioner produced Ext.P9 photographs and it is also submitted that the matter is seizin by the Civil Court and there is an interim order also, not to evict the petitioner from the premises forcefully. The petitioner submitted that, Ext.P8 is issued without notice to the petitioner and behind his back. Hence, this writ petition is filed.

4. Heard, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader. Even though notice is issued to respondent Nos.2, 4 to 6, there is no appearance.

5. This Court perused Ext.P8. Admittedly, Ext.P8 is a proceedings issued without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Moreover, an injunction order is already passed by the Civil Court against forceful eviction. In such circumstances, I think, Ext.P8 will not stand. I make it clear that, if the Panchayat want to take any action, the Panchayat can initiate separate proceedings, after giving sufficient opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and other affected parties. But, Ext.P8 is to be set aside.

Therefore, this Writ Petition(C) is disposed of with the following directions:

1. Exhibit P8 is set aside. But, I make it clea