Writ Courts Can't Hear Appeals Against Municipality Decisions Granting/ Refusing Licence To Occupy Public Place In Absence Of Malafide: Kerala HC

“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.”

The observations were made in a writ petition filed seeking an extension for using the public ground under the control of the Municipality for carrying an Aqua Fest Exhibition called Ecstasy.

The petitioner organises an Aqua Fest Exhibition called Ecstasy in Municipal Ground, Kottayam which showcases a rare collection of flora and fauna. The event was initially scheduled from August 19 to September 17 and as the event garnered wide popularity among the public, the petitioner submitted an application for an extension of ten more days.

The Revenue Officer of Kottayam Municipality rejected the extension application submitted by the petitioner. The impugned order was challenged before the High Court through a petition.

The Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the rejection of the extension application was arbitrary and discriminatory. It was submitted that the petitioner had the licence to conduct the event and obtained all permissions and that the extension application was rejected without considering relevant factors.

However, the counsel for the respondent submitted that the decision to reject the extension application was issued after considering various factors and that the decision to extend the period fixed in a licence to use its grounds was a prerogative of the Municipality. It was also submitted that the Municipality had to organize an event under the Swach Bharath Mission for which also the ground was required.

The Court found that the petitioner could prefer an appeal against the impugned order to the Municipal Council. It further observed that the Municipality has the power to decide regarding the control and administration of public places. 

Justice Thomas also reiterated that the court's jurisdiction under Article 226 is limited to interference when an order is perverse, legally flawed, or demonstrates a lack of jurisdiction.

It was further pointed out that the petitioner had prior knowledge of the specified license period, and her delay in addressing it earlier weakened her case for an extension.

The Court thus held that it could not sit upon the decisions of the Municipality especially in matters pertaining to grant or refusal of a licence or permission to occupy a public place. 

Accordingly, the Court dismissed the writ petition. However, the petitioner was advised to pursue an appeal if desired, and the court specifically held that such an appeal would be considered without the limitations of the writ jurisdiction. 

Counsel for the Petitioner: Advocates Rameez Nooh and Fathima K

Counsel for the respondents: Government Pleader Devishri R, C S Manilal

Case title: Archa Unni V State of Kerala

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 501

Case number: W.P.(C) No.30809 of 2023

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment