The petitioner has filed this writ petition aggrieved by Ext.P6 proceedings of the 2nd respondent by which, an application for licence to conduct business in a commercial building owned by him has been rejected. The reason stated in Ext.P6 is that, the building has been constructed on paddy field that has been reclaimed. It is stated that, as per the Circular issued by the Government, only a residential building having an area of less than 300 Sq.m was permissible in such a property. Since the petitioner has constructed a commercial building, it is stated that, no permission to conduct any business establishment therein could be granted. The petitioner has responded to Ext.P6 by submitting Ext.P7.
2. In Ext.P7, it has been pointed out that, the building has been in existence for the past 10 - 15 years. The building was constructed on the strength of a building permit issued by the Panchayat. The building has been assessed to property tax which according to the petitioner, he has been paying. For the purpose of effecting some alteration to the building, he had remitted permit regularisation fee, the receipt of which also he has produced. The counsel for the petitioner places reliance on Ext.P3, a certificate issued by the 1st respondent to the effect that, the petitioner's W.P.(C) No.30396 of 2013 2 building was being assessed to property tax as per the register maintained by the Panchayat. According to the counsel for the petitioner, the impugned proceedings Ext.P6 has been issued without considering any of the above facts.
3. Adv.Sri.Philip.T.Varghese appears for the Panchayat. The counsel assures that the petitioner's application would be considered afresh and appropriate orders would be passed thereon, without delay.
In view of the above, this writ petition is disposed of directing the 2nd respondent to consider the application for grant of licence submitted by the petitioner in the light of Ext.P3 certificate as well as the other documents produced by the petitioner along with Ext.P7, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner also and to pass appropriate orders thereon, as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of one month of the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
Sd/-
K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE.
AV