Court Cannot Sit In Appeal Over Decision Of Authorities Especially When It Relates To Grant Or Refusal Of Licence Or Permission To Occupy Public Place- Kerala HC
|The Kerala High Court held that it cannot act as an appellate authority over decisions related to licenses or permissions for public places, emphasizing its limited jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Court held that it can only interfere with such orders if they exhibited perversity, patent illegality, or lacked jurisdiction. In this case, the petitioner had challenged the rejection of her request to extend the period of a license granted to her for organizing the 'Aqua Fest' exhibition in Kerala. The petitioner claimed that the event has gained immense popularity and applied for an extension ten days before the license expiration date, but her request was denied on September 18, 2023.
A Bench of Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas held that “this Court cannot sit in appeal over the decisions of the authorities, especially when it relates to the grant or refusal of a licence or a permission to occupy a public place. The Municipal authorities who are vested with the powers of control and administration of public places would necessarily have to take decision on the basis of the best interests of not only the Municipality but also of the people. Therefore, in the absence of any perversity or any malafides being attributed or shown to exist in issuing the impugned order, there is no cause for any interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.”
Advocate Rameez Nooh appeared for the Petitioner and Advocate Devishri R appeared for the Respondents.
The counsel for respondents argued that the decision to extend the license period is within the Municipality's prerogative. They stated that various factors led to the rejection, including the need to conduct a 'Swach Bharath Mission' event on the same grounds.
The Court noted that the order to refuse the extension is appealable and advised the petitioner to file an appeal with the Municipal Council. Additionally, the Court emphasized its limited jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It said that it can only interfere with orders if they are perverse, exhibit patent illegality, or lack jurisdiction. The Court further added that it cannot act as an appellate authority over decisions related to licenses or permissions for public places.
The Court highlighted that the Municipal authorities must make decisions in the best interests of the Municipality and the people. Without evidence of perversity or malafides in the impugned order, the Court saw no reason to interfere under Article 226.
The Court further noted that the petitioner should have taken action earlier if she was dissatisfied with the initially stipulated license period. Since she did not, the Court does not find it appropriate to grant an extension based on sympathetic considerations.
Accordingly, the Court dismissed the Writ Petition.
Cause Title: Archa Unni v. State of Kerala & Ors., [2023:KER:55815]
Click here to read/download Judgment