1. Petitioner sought direction to process a licence application for an amusement ride and exhibition centre following closure by municipal authorities over disputed structural stability and licence requirements. (Para 1 , 2 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 74931
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bechu Kurian Thomas, J
Faisal C.V. – Appellant
Versus
Kannur Municipal Corporation – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 38306 OF 2026
Important Points
The court directed the municipal authority to consider a license application for an amusement center expeditiously, conditioned upon the petitioner's affidavit undertaking not to operate machinery lacking required fitness certificates.
Subject
Administrative Law - Municipal Licensing
Act Referred
Kerala Municipality Act, 1994
Headnote
(A) Municipal Laws - Licensing of Amusement Centres - Direction to consider application - Where the petitioner submitted an affidavit undertaking not to use specific machinery without fitness certificates, the authority is directed to process the license application based on such undertaking. (Para 4, 5)
Issues: Whether the respondent should be directed to consider the petitioner's application for a license based on an affidavit undertaking fitness compliance.
Issues: Whether the respondent should be directed to consider the petitioner's application for a license based on an affidavit undertaking fitness compliance.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: M.R. Dhanil, Senitta P. Jojo
For the Respondents: Silpa Sreekumar, Joemon Antony
For the Appellants/Petitioners: M.R. Dhanil, Senitta P. Jojo
For the Respondents: Silpa Sreekumar, Joemon Antony
Table of Contents
2. Municipal authorities contended that the lack of a fitness certificate bars licence consideration, whereas the petitioner offered an undertaking to refrain from using non-certified machinery. (Para 3 , 4 )
3. The court found that the pending licence application could be processed by relying on an affidavit undertaking to avoid using machinery lacking the required fitness certificate. (Para 5 )
4. A licensing authority may proceed to consider an application for operation upon the applicant providing a formal undertaking to abstain from using machinery that lacks the requisite fitness certificate. (Para 5 )
5. Can a license application be processed if specific machinery lacks a fitness certificate?
Yes, where an applicant provides a formal affidavit undertaking not to utilize the machinery lacking fitness certification, the licensing authority can proceed to consider the application for operation. (Para 4 , 5 )
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J.
JUDGMENT
The petitioner was running an amusement ride and exhibition centre at Payyambalam Beach, Kannur. Though the machinery used at the centre did not have licence, petitioner claims that he had deemed licence under the provisions of the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994 . in the meantime, the Corporation authorities inspected the premises and closed the Centre on 29.10.2026 alleging that the same was being run illegally.
2. According to the Corporation, the petitioner had not provided the Structural Stability Certificate, while the petitioner disputes the same, relying upon Ext.P3 Certificate. In the meantime, petitioner filed an application for grant of licence, which is evidenced by Ext.P1 receipt. The limited prayer of the petitioner is for a direction to consider the said application for licence submitted by him.
3. The learned Standing Counsel, upon instructions, submitted that the machinery used by the petitioner does not have the required fitness certificate and hence the application for licence cannot be considered.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner referred to Ext.P5, an afÏdavit, submitted to the Corporation stating that he will not use the machinery in the amusement park unless and until the required fitness certificate is obtained from the authority concerned. The learned counsel also submitted that the application may be directed to be processed on the basis of the afÏdavit submitted, as Ext.P5, since there are various other rides that can be utilised without obtaining the said fitness certificate.
5. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Standing Counsel, this Court is of the view that this writ petition can be disposed of with a direction.
Accordingly, there will be a direction to the second respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on the application for licence submitted by the petitioner as Ext.P1 based on Ext.P5 afÏdavit, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within an outer period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment.
The writ petition is disposed of.
