K.S.Asokan Vs. State of Kerala - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1135989
CourtKerala High Court
Decided OnMar-25-2014
JudgeHONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR
AppellantK.S.Asokan
RespondentState of Kerala
Excerpt:
in the high court of kerala at ernakulam present: the honourable mr.justice c.t.ravikumar tuesday, the25h day of march20144th chaithra, 1936 wp(c).no. 8409 of 2014 (a) --------------------------- petitioner: -------------- k.s.asokan s/o.sekharan k.v., proprietor, asoka theatre residing at kallat house, p.o.thalikulam thrissur district. by advs.sri.p.vijaya bhanu (sr.) smt.m.m.deepa sri.v.a.johnson varikkappallil respondents:- ----------------- 1. state of kerala represented by secretary to government department of local self government, secretariat thiruvananthapuram - 695 001.2. the secretary, kodungallur municipality - 680 664.3. assistant engineer, pwd buildings sub division, kodungallur - 680 664. r1 & r3 by government pleader smt.anitha ravindran this writ petition (civil) having come up for admission on2503-2014, the court on the same day delivered the following: wp(c).no. 8409 of 2014 (a) --------------------------- appendix petitioner's exhibits --------------------------- exhibit p1. true copy of the licence issued by the2d respondent. exhibit p2. true copy of the certificate of structural soundness issued by the3d respondent. exhibit p3. true copy of the form d certificate no: b56-2092/14/eir dated0603.2014 issued by the electrical inspector, thrissur. exhibit p4. true copy of the certificate dated1103.2014 issued from films division, the ministry of information and broadcasting, government of india. exhibit p5. true copy of the application dated0703.2014 submitted by the petitioner before the2d respondent. exhibit p6. true copy of the application dated0703.2014 submitted by the petitioner for renewal of exhibit p1 licence. exhibit p7. true copy of the application dated1503.2014 submitted by the petitioner before the2d respondent. exhibit p8. true copy of the application dated1503.2014 submitted by the petitioner before the2d respondent for permitting to remit the renewal fee. exhibit p9. true copy of the application dated1703.2014 submitted by the petitioner before the2d respondent. respondents' exhibits : nil ---------------------------- // true copy // tks p.s. to judge c.t.ravikumar, j.------------------------------ w.p.(c)no.8409 of 2014 ------------------------------- dated 25th march, 2014 judgment the petitioner is the proprietor of `asoka' theatre being operated from building no.xii/372 of kodungallur municipality. for conducting exhibition of cinematograph the petitioner obtained ext.p1 licence from the second respondent and it is valid up to 31.3.2014. the petitioner submitted ext.p6 application for renewal of ext.p1 licence on 7.3.2014. along with the same the petitioner submitted ext.p5 application for renewal of ext.p2 viz., the structural stability certificate. in fact, ext.p2 structural stability certificate is also valid up to 31.3.2014. this writ petition has been filed mainly with the prayer to issue a writ of mandamus commanding the second respondent to renew the licence before 31.3.2014. the further prayer is for issuance of a writ of mandamus commanding the second respondent to forward ext.p5 application to the 3rd respondent to enable renewal of ext.p2 structural stability certificate before the expiry of ext.p1 licence.2. i have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and also the learned government pleader. wp(c).no.8409/2014 2 3. in view of the order i propose to pass in this writ petition i do not think it necessary to issue notice to the second respondent in this proceedings. in the context of the contentions it is relevant to refer to rule 22 of the kerala cinemas (regulation) rules, 1988 (for short `the rules'). a perusal of rule 22 of the rules would reveal that an application for renewal of licence either permanent or temporary shall be made one month before the expiry of the existing licence. going by the said rule such an application shall be accompanied by documents referred to in clause (ii) and (iii) of rule 13 and a receipt for payment of fees at the prescribed rate. the contention of the petitioner is that the application was submitted for renewal along with all requisite documents. at the same time, it is the contention of the petitioner that the second respondent refused to receive the fees. as noticed hereinbefore, going by rule 22 of the rules requiring submission of an application for renewal one month before the expiry of the existing licence and taking note of the fact that ext.p1 licence is valid only up to 31.3.2014 the petitioner ought to have made an application for its renewal on or before 27.2.2014. at the same time, it is evident that the petitioner has submitted the application for renewal on 7.3.2014. in other words, obviously, the petitioner has submitted an application for renewal prior to wp(c).no.8409/2014 3 the expiry of the period of the existing licence viz., ext.p1. in such circumstances, the second respondent cannot refuse to receive the fees payable by the petitioner or to decline to receive the application for getting renewal of the licence. but, at the same time, the petitioner cannot seek for issuance of a temporary licence in the light of rule 23 of the rules as the petitioner had failed to make such an application within the statutorily prescribed period under rule 22, as a matter of right. at any rate, that cannot take away the right of the petitioner to apply for renewal as the petitioner has obviously submitted an application for renewal prior to the expiry of the existing ext.p1 licence and there is no express bar under law for seeking renewal of the existing licence before its expiry solely because of failure to make an application by the licensee within the time stipulated under rule 22 of the rules . this writ petition has been filed only on 21.3.2014. in such circumstances mentioned above, i am of the view that the petitioner is not justified in seeking for a direction to the respondents to renew ext.p1 licence before 31.3.2014 especially in the light of the provisions under rule 22 of the rules. certainly, that cannot be a reason for the second respondent to refuse to consider an application or to delay the consideration of ext.p6 application for renewal of ext.p1. taking into account the aforesaid facts and factors wp(c).no.8409/2014 4 this writ petition is disposed of as hereunder:- the second respondent shall forward ext.p5 application submitted by the petitioner for renewal of ext.p2 structural stability certificate to the third respondent within three days from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. on receipt of the same, it will be open to the third respondent to conduct an inspection, if it is required, into the premises in question for ascertaining the structural stability. after such inspection, if required, orders on ext.p5 shall be passed as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of ext.p5 from the second respondent and then communicate that order forthwith to the second respondent. on receipt of the same the second respondent shall pass appropriate orders on ext.p6 application for renewal of ext.p1 licence expeditiously, at any rate within two weeks from the date of its receipt. sd/- c.t.ravikumar judge tks
Judgment:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR TUESDAY, THE25H DAY OF MARCH20144TH CHAITHRA, 1936 WP(C).No. 8409 of 2014 (A) --------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------- K.S.ASOKAN S/O.SEKHARAN K.V., PROPRIETOR, ASOKA THEATRE RESIDING AT KALLAT HOUSE, P.O.THALIKULAM THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADVS.SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU (SR.) SMT.M.M.DEEPA SRI.V.A.JOHNSON VARIKKAPPALLIL RESPONDENTS:- ----------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT OF LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT, SECRETARIAT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.

2. THE SECRETARY, KODUNGALLUR MUNICIPALITY - 680 664.

3. ASSISTANT ENGINEER, PWD BUILDINGS SUB DIVISION, KODUNGALLUR - 680 664. R1 & R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.ANITHA RAVINDRAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON2503-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 8409 of 2014 (A) --------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS --------------------------- EXHIBIT P1. TRUE COPY OF THE LICENCE ISSUED BY THE2D RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P2. TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF STRUCTURAL SOUNDNESS ISSUED BY THE3D RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P3. TRUE COPY OF THE FORM D CERTIFICATE NO: B56-2092/14/EIR DATED0603.2014 ISSUED BY THE ELECTRICAL INSPECTOR, THRISSUR. EXHIBIT P4. TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED1103.2014 ISSUED FROM FILMS DIVISION, THE MINISTRY OF INFORMATION AND BROADCASTING, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA. EXHIBIT P5. TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED0703.2014 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE2D RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P6. TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED0703.2014 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER FOR RENEWAL OF EXHIBIT P1 LICENCE. EXHIBIT P7. TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED1503.2014 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE2D RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P8. TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED1503.2014 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE2D RESPONDENT FOR PERMITTING TO REMIT THE RENEWAL FEE. EXHIBIT P9. TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED1703.2014 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE2D RESPONDENT. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL ---------------------------- // TRUE COPY // TKS P.S. TO JUDGE C.T.RAVIKUMAR, J.

------------------------------ W.P.(C)No.8409 of 2014 ------------------------------- Dated 25th March, 2014 JUDGMENT

The petitioner is the proprietor of `Asoka' theatre being operated from building No.XII/372 of Kodungallur Municipality. For conducting exhibition of cinematograph the petitioner obtained Ext.P1 licence from the second respondent and it is valid up to 31.3.2014. The petitioner submitted Ext.P6 application for renewal of Ext.P1 licence on 7.3.2014. Along with the same the petitioner submitted Ext.P5 application for renewal of Ext.P2 viz., the structural stability certificate. In fact, Ext.P2 structural stability certificate is also valid up to 31.3.2014. This writ petition has been filed mainly with the prayer to issue a writ of mandamus commanding the second respondent to renew the licence before 31.3.2014. The further prayer is for issuance of a writ of mandamus commanding the second respondent to forward Ext.P5 application to the 3rd respondent to enable renewal of Ext.P2 structural stability certificate before the expiry of Ext.P1 licence.

2. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and also the learned Government Pleader. WP(C).No.8409/2014 2 3. In view of the order I propose to pass in this writ petition I do not think it necessary to issue notice to the second respondent in this proceedings. In the context of the contentions it is relevant to refer to Rule 22 of the Kerala Cinemas (Regulation) Rules, 1988 (for short `the Rules'). A perusal of Rule 22 of the Rules would reveal that an application for renewal of licence either permanent or temporary shall be made one month before the expiry of the existing licence. Going by the said rule such an application shall be accompanied by documents referred to in clause (ii) and (iii) of Rule 13 and a receipt for payment of fees at the prescribed rate. The contention of the petitioner is that the application was submitted for renewal along with all requisite documents. At the same time, it is the contention of the petitioner that the second respondent refused to receive the fees. As noticed hereinbefore, going by Rule 22 of the Rules requiring submission of an application for renewal one month before the expiry of the existing licence and taking note of the fact that Ext.P1 licence is valid only up to 31.3.2014 the petitioner ought to have made an application for its renewal on or before 27.2.2014. At the same time, it is evident that the petitioner has submitted the application for renewal on 7.3.2014. In other words, obviously, the petitioner has submitted an application for renewal prior to WP(C).No.8409/2014 3 the expiry of the period of the existing licence viz., Ext.P1. In such circumstances, the second respondent cannot refuse to receive the fees payable by the petitioner or to decline to receive the application for getting renewal of the licence. But, at the same time, the petitioner cannot seek for issuance of a temporary licence in the light of Rule 23 of the Rules as the petitioner had failed to make such an application within the statutorily prescribed period under Rule 22, as a matter of right. At any rate, that cannot take away the right of the petitioner to apply for renewal as the petitioner has obviously submitted an application for renewal prior to the expiry of the existing Ext.P1 licence and there is no express bar under law for seeking renewal of the existing licence before its expiry solely because of failure to make an application by the licensee within the time stipulated under Rule 22 of the Rules . This writ petition has been filed only on 21.3.2014. In such circumstances mentioned above, I am of the view that the petitioner is not justified in seeking for a direction to the respondents to renew Ext.P1 licence before 31.3.2014 especially in the light of the provisions under Rule 22 of the Rules. Certainly, that cannot be a reason for the second respondent to refuse to consider an application or to delay the consideration of Ext.P6 application for renewal of Ext.P1. Taking into account the aforesaid facts and factors WP(C).No.8409/2014 4 this writ petition is disposed of as hereunder:- The second respondent shall forward Ext.P5 application submitted by the petitioner for renewal of Ext.P2 structural stability certificate to the third respondent within three days from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. On receipt of the same, it will be open to the third respondent to conduct an inspection, if it is required, into the premises in question for ascertaining the structural stability. After such inspection, if required, orders on Ext.P5 shall be passed as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of Ext.P5 from the second respondent and then communicate that order forthwith to the second respondent. On receipt of the same the second respondent shall pass appropriate orders on Ext.P6 application for renewal of Ext.P1 licence expeditiously, at any rate within two weeks from the date of its receipt. Sd/- C.T.RAVIKUMAR Judge TKS