A ZIYAD vs SMT.L.S.DEEPA

This contempt proceedings is instituted by the petitioner in W.P.(C).No.34218 of 2017 alleging willful noncompliance of the directions issued by

this Court in terms of the judgment in the said case.

The petitioner was running a shop in a building within the limits of the Thiruvananthapuram Corporation (the Corporation). The said building is

owned by the second respondent in the writ petition. The second respondent preferred a complaint before the Corporation alleging that the

petitioner is running business in the shop without obtaining licence from the Corporation. The Corporation has not taken any action on the said

complaint. The second respondent, in the circumstances, approached this Court by filing a writ petition and the said writ petition was disposed of

by this Court directing the Corporation to take appropriate action on the complaint preferred by him, after affording the petitioner an opportunity

of hearing. The case set up by the petitioner in the writ petition was that in purported compliance of the said direction issued by this Court, the

shop of the petitioner has been closed down by the Corporation, without affording him an opportunity of hearing. This Court disposed of the writ

petition directing the respondent, the Secretary of the Corporation, to pass fresh orders on the complaint lodged by the second respondent in the

writ petition, after affording the petitioner and the second respondent an opportunity of hearing. This Court also directed the respondent to

consider the application preferred by the petitioner for grant of licence, in the light of the decision of the Apex Court in Sudhakaran v. Corporation

of Thiruvananthapuram [(2016 (3) KLT 247 (SC)). This Court further directed the respondent to permit the petitioner to remove the movables

kept by him in the shop. As noted above, the petitioner alleges noncompliance of the said directions issued by this Court.

A statement has been filed by the respondent. The stand taken by the respondent in the statement is that the directions issued by this Court have

been complied with.

It is seen that pursuant to the direction issued by this Court, the parties were afforded an opportunity of hearing by the respondent on

24/11/2017. The petitioner does not dispute the said fact. Annexure R3 is the order passed by the respondent after the hearing. As regards the

compliant lodged by the second respondent in the writ petition, it is stated in Annexure R3 order that since the petitioner has started business in the

premises without obtaining licence from the Corporation, the shop room is liable to be closed down. The petitioner has no case that he has

obtained licence to conduct business in the shop in question. In so far as the petitioner has no case that he has obtained licence to conduct business

in the shop room from the Corporation, the petitioner cannot be heard to contend that the decision of the Corporation that the petitioner is not

entitled to conduct business in the shop room would amount to wilful disobedience of the direction issued by this Court. Of course, the petitioner is

free to challenge the said decision in accordance with law.

Coming to the application preferred by the petitioner for licence, it is stated in Annexure R3 order that the Corporation has received legal advice

to the effect that though consent of the landlord is not required at the time of renewal of the licence already issued to the tenant, consent is

mandatory for obtaining the initial licence. The case of the petitioner in the contempt case as regards this point, in essence, is that the legal opinion

received by the Corporation is incorrect. As noted above, this Court only directed the Corporation to consider the application preferred by the

petitioner for licence in the light of the decision of the Apex Court referred to in the judgment. As mentioned earlier, the stand of the Corporation is

that the petitioner is not entitled to licence in the light of the decision of the Apex Court mentioned in the judgment, in terms of the legal opinion

received by the Corporation. The legal opinion received by the Corporation may or may not be correct. The petitioner has no case that the

Corporation has not obtained a legal opinion as claimed in Annexure R3 order. In so far as the direction has been complied with on the basis of the

legal opinion, the petitioner cannot be heard to contend that there is willful non-compliance of the direction issued by this Court.

As regards the direction to permit the petitioner to remove his movables, it is seen that in terms of Annexure R3 order, the petitioner is granted

permission to remove the movables.

In the aforesaid circumstances, I deem it appropriate to close the contempt case without prejudice to the right of the writ petitioner to challenge

Annexure R3 order. Ordered accordingly.