CORPORATION OF KOCHI versus ELAMKULAM VILLAGE CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD. AND ANR.

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 611 · Decided: 29-08-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

CORPORATION OF KOCHI 
A 
v. 
ELAMKULAM VILLAGE CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD: AND ANR. 
AUGUST 29, 2006 
[ARIJITPASAYAT AND LOKESHWARSINGH PANTA,JJ.] 
B 
Kera/a Municipality Act, 1994: 
ss. 2(31) and 460-Licence for private markets-Renewal of-
Applications for renewal not filed for two years and filed in third year C 
belatedly-Held, application could not have been made for renewal after the 
expiry of the period provided-Renewal of licence retrospectively after expil)1 
of the period during which Society had unauthorisedly carried on activities 
is not contemplated in law-Applications rightly rejected by authorities. 
Respondent no. I-Society was conducting a private market as defined 
under s.2(Jl) of the Kera la Municipality Act, 1994. It had constructed certain 
shops and leased out the same to its members. The private market was being 
conducted by the Society after obtaining licence from the Corporation under 
D 
the erstwhib f(erala Municipal Corporation Act, 1961. The licence was being 
renewed every year on payment of prescribed licence fee. The Society failed E 
to apply for renewal of the licence for the year 1997-98. The Society alongwith 
a letter dated 4.8.1998 submitted applications in the prescribed form for 
licence, but the appellant-Corporation rejected the same. Writ petitions were 
filed before the High Court and on its directions the Corporation again 
considered the application and rejected the same by order dated 20.L1999. F 
The said order was challenged before the High Court. The Corporation filed 
counter affidavit contending that an alternative remedy was available to the 
Society under s.509(l)(b) of the Act; that the market was very congested and 
unhygienic, abutting a very busy road; and that the Society did not apply for 
renewal of the licence from 1995-96 onwards. The single Judge dismissed 
the writ petition holding that the issues concerned could be gone into more G 
effectively in an appeal under s.509(1) of the Act and as disputed questions of 
facts were involved, it would not be proper to decide the issue in the writ 
petition. But the Division Bench allowed Society's appeal holding that s.ince . 
the order impugned in the writ petition was running counter to the directions 
611 
612 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 
A contained in the earlier judgment, the writ petition was maintainable; and that 
merely because there was delay in seeking renewal of the licence that cannot 
be a ground to refuse the licence, particularly, when there was no specific 
period_ provided for making an application. Aggrieved, the Corporation filed 
the present appeals. 
B 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: I.I. The High Court itself has noted that the application for 
renewal has to be filed within the stipulated period. The view that application 
can be made at any time is not correct, because application for renewal was 
C filed after the expiry of the period. Respondent no. I-Society itself had 
indicated that it had no intention to carry out the activities. Further, every 
observation/direction given by the High Court in the earlier judgment had 
been duly and elaborately discussed and thereafter the order rejecting the 
applications was passed. There was no application for renewal made at any 
time, even not belated, for the year 1996-97. Obviously, the application could 
D not have been made for renewal of the licence after the expiry of the period 
which is the case for the period 1997-98. For the year 1998-99 the application 
was made on 4.8.1998 i.e. after the expiry of the period provided. 
(618-D-G; 619-A( 
1.2. The question of renewal of lice~ce retrospectively after the expiry 
E of the period during which the society had unauthorisedly carried on activities 
is not contemplated in law. Therefore, the impugned judgment of the Division 
Bench of the High Court is clearly indefensible, and is set aside. (619-A-B] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 4982 of2000. 
F 
From Judgment and Order dated 10.9.1999 of the High Court of Kerala 
G 
at Ernakulam in W.A. No. 1223/1999. 
WITH 
C.A. No. 48983 of 2000 and C.A. No. 3212 of 2006. 
V.B. Saharya (for Mis. Saharya & Co.) and E.M.S. Anam, for the Appellant. 
R. Gopalakrishnan, Jai Kishor Singh, Subramonium Prasad and Malini 
Poduval (N.P.), for the Respondents. 
H 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
CORPN.OFKOCHlv. ELAMKULAMVILLAGECO-OPERATIVESOCIETYL TD.[PASYAYAT,J.] 6 J 3 
ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. These appeals rel

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.