JUDGMENT : K. Vinod Chandran, J. The issue which was once settled by Exhibit P8 has been made complex by the high handed action of the respondent-Municipality in attempting to evict the petitioner with 24 hour notice, as is seen from Exhibit P15. 2. The petitioner, was in possession of a shop room in a parking space allotted for parking of taxies. The petitioner admittedly had been in occupation from 1993 onwards. Earlier there were other shop rooms, in which also licensees were inducted. It is the submission of the Municipality that the other licensees were evicted and the petitioner was the only person continuing in the subject premises. It is also submitted that the particular premises was intended to be a waiting shed with four pillars, which was covered and used by the petitioner as a shop room; admittedly on licence of the Municipality. The petitioner is now alleged to be in illegal possession of the premises, since the land vested with the Municipality on orders of the Government; was specifically for the purpose of parking of taxies and not for any other purpose, as per Exhibit R7(1). It is also stated that by Exhibit R7(2) the District Collector had issued communication to the Municipality threatening resumption of the property if it is not restored to the original use, for which the transfer was effected. 3. At the outset, the earlier litigation has to be looked at. The petitioner was before this Court with W.P.(C) No. 31213 of 2016 against the rejection of an appeal filed before the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions [for brevity "the Tribunal"], wherein the orders of the Municipality directing demolition of an unauthorised construction was the subject matter. The Tribunal found that the petitioner was in occupation of more area than that was originally licensed to him. The Tribunal, hence, rejected the appeal confirming the order of the Secretary. This Court also found, by Exhibit P8, that the petitioner was originally put in possession of only 16.98 square meters. The contention with respect to the petitioner being in possession of 27 square meters on the strength of a plan of the Assistant Engineer was found to be not sustainable. This Court, hence, affirmed the order of the Tribunal and directed the demolition of the unauthorised constructions made beyond the area licensed to the petitioner. 4. The contention with respect to the petitioner being in possession of 27 square meters on the strength of a plan of the Assistant Engineer was found to be not sustainable. This Court, hence, affirmed the order of the Tribunal and directed the demolition of the unauthorised constructions made beyond the area licensed to the petitioner. 4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner, then sought for some time to carry out the demolition, especially since the festival at the Vaikom temple was approaching. This Court, by Exhibit P8 after finding the petitioner to be in unauthorised possession of more extent than that licensed to him and also finding the demolition ordered by the Municipality to be proper, directed that the petitioner would be allowed to carry on the business for six weeks, after which the demolition would be made and an application for licence submitted before the Secretary. This Court also noticed the contention of the Municipality that eviction proceedings were pending against the petitioner and left liberty to continue the same. The petitioner later filed an Interlocutory Application seeking 10 days extension from 17.11.2016. This Court then directed an undertaking to be filed. The undertaking having been filed by way of an affidavit, this Court granted 10 days further time from 17.11.2016, as per Exhibit P9. 5. The petitioner is said to have demolished the unauthorised construction by 25.11.2016 and then made a further application to the Municipality, as is seen from Exhibit P13 dated 26.11.2016. No hearing was conducted and by Exhibit P14 the application was rejected on the ground that the petitioner is in illegal occupation of a premise, which, by the specific grant made by the Government, was to be used only for the purpose of parking taxies. On the same day, yet another order was passed at Exhibit P15 directing the petitioner to handover vacant possession within 24 hours. On 01.12.2016, Exhibits P14 and P15 were served on the petitioner and on 02.12.2016, the petitioner was sought to be evicted. 6. On 02.12.2016, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner requested for a 'Today moving' and filed the present writ petition. Thereafter, before the writ petition was moved, the petitioner filed I.A. No.19890 of 2016 by "Bench-mark" and both the Writ Petition and the Interlocutory Application; were placed before Court and an interim order was passed, which reads as follows: "Admit. Govt. Thereafter, before the writ petition was moved, the petitioner filed I.A. No.19890 of 2016 by "Bench-mark" and both the Writ Petition and the Interlocutory Application; were placed before Court and an interim order was passed, which reads as follows: "Admit. Govt. Pleader takes notice for respondents 1, 3, 4 and 5. Sri. Sreelal Warrier takes notice for R2. Sri. P.A. Ahammed takes notice for R6. I.A. No.19890/16. The Secretary of the Municipality shall ensure that the shop room which was leased out to the petitioner is re-opened and the entire materials remoed from that, is placed back in the room and the room shall be given to the possession of the petitioner by 5.00 p.m. Today. The respondents 4 and 5 shall ensure that there is no further damage caused to the building. If the electric connection given to the building has been disconnected, the same shall be restored. The Secretary shall file a report on 5.12.16". 7. Despite such an interim order, it is stated that demolition of the building was attempted causing damage to the building, which, it is alleged by the petitioner, was at the behest of the Councillors and the Secretary; but denied by the Secretary. The Secretary of the Municipality points out that he had furnished information to the Police about the possibility of demolition being made. It is also submitted that the demolition itself was made by miscreants and not by the official respondents. 8. The contempt case was filed by the petitioner for violation of the said interim order, in which a Compact Disc was also produced to show the eviction effected and the demolition being perpetrated on the same day, the eviction in the morning and the demolition in the afternoon. As directed, the parties were present before this Court on 09.12.2016. This Court, on going through the CD and the records produced in the case as also hearing the petitioner and the respondents, passed an order dated 09.12.2016, which reads as under: "The petitioner, the petitioner's son, the Secretary of the Municipality as also the Senior Veterinary Surgeon who witnessed the handing over of the items to the son of the petitioner, as per the inventory prepared, were present. The Veterinary Surgeon identified the son of the petitioner as the person who received the items, as per the inventory. 2. The Veterinary Surgeon identified the son of the petitioner as the person who received the items, as per the inventory. 2. The Secretary of the Municipality submits that 24 hours notice was given and after that the Secretary had evicted the petitioner forcefully from the premises. This Court had viewed the Compact Disc submitted by the petitioner which shows the Secretary having broken open the lock in the shutters and having entered the shop-room and removed the items kept in the shop room. It is also seen that widespread damage has been caused to the shop room after the Secretary had thus entered into the shop room. Though the Secretary asserts that the demolition was not at his instigation, however, it is to be noticed that the allegation is that the arbitrary and high handed action of the Secretary, who forcefully entered into the premises and removed the goods therein, led to the subsequent demolition of the building by miscreants. 3. The Secretary who was asked to be present with the keys of the shop room was directed to hand over the keys to the petitioner which has been done in the Court-room. 4. The Secretary, Biju S., S./o. Sankara Pilla, Aged 41 years, Prasanthi, Pathirapally P.O., Alappuzha, is personally impleaded, suo motu, as additional 7th respondent in the writ petition. The Secretary shall file an affidavit within one week as to why action shall not be taken against him. 5. The learned Counsel appearing for the Municipality is not present despite this Court specifically posting this case, considering the urgency of the matter at 10.15 a.m. today. The matter hence shall be posted on 13.12.2016. The petitioner shall not carry on any business in the premises till 13.12.2016. The petitioner is permitted to make any temporary measures to protect the shop room which he shall do at his own risk and cost. The respondents 3 to 5 shall ensure that no law and order situation is created and any activity carried on by the petitioner, in the shop room, except the business, shall not be disrupted by anybody. No separate notice need be issued to the additional 7th respondent since he is present in Court and is made aware of the impleadment, in his personal capacity, by the learned Counsel, representing the Standing Counsel for the Municipality". 9. No separate notice need be issued to the additional 7th respondent since he is present in Court and is made aware of the impleadment, in his personal capacity, by the learned Counsel, representing the Standing Counsel for the Municipality". 9. As of now, the petitioner is in possession of the building; the keys having been handed over to the petitioner. The petitioner has also made some temporary arrangements to ensure that the building is maintained as a shop room. 10. The further contention taken by the respondent-Municipality now is that the petitioner is in illegal possession of the building, since the space allotted specifically for parking of taxies could not have been utilised for any other purpose. The respondent-Municipality also relies on Exhibits R7(1) and R7(2) to contend that emergent steps had to be taken by the Municipality to restore the use to which the grant was made by Exhibit R7(1); failing which there was a threat of resumption of the property. It is also submitted that the petitioner having found to be in illegal occupation of the premises for reason of the unauthorised use, there can be no issuance of a D&O Licence. Nor can there be a direction to consider the same, is the contention raised based on the decision in Sakeer v. Director of Panchayath [2015 (3) KHC 207]. 11. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, however, would draw a distinction insofar as the Municipality being in the status of owner of a building as also the local authority who issues the D&O Licence. The license to occuppy the premises and the license to carry on the bussiness are separate aspects, which need not be intermingled is the argument. To further buttress the case, the learned Counsel relies on the decisions in Swapna Jestus K. v. Secretary, Pulpally Grama Panchayath and Another [2013 (1) KHC 450] and Shajahan M.I. v. Alice George and Others [2015 (1) KHC 811]. Further it is stated that there should, necessarily, be a notice and reasonable opportunity before rejection of a D&O Licence is made, as is found in Sudhakaran v. Corporation of Trivandrum and Another [2016 (3) KHC 803] and Raj Restaurant v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi [1983 KHC 250 = AIR 1982 SC 1550 ]. 12. Further it is stated that there should, necessarily, be a notice and reasonable opportunity before rejection of a D&O Licence is made, as is found in Sudhakaran v. Corporation of Trivandrum and Another [2016 (3) KHC 803] and Raj Restaurant v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi [1983 KHC 250 = AIR 1982 SC 1550 ]. 12. Sudhakaran, Swapna Jestus and Shajahan.M.I. are cases in which the owner of the premises was a private individual and the tenant was the person who sought for a D&O license from the local authority. The issue raised was also the necessity for a consent at every renewal of D& O license, which is issued for an year. The principles laid down does not have any application to the facts of this case, even with reference to the distinction urged by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. The distinction, however is very much explicit. The license to occupy the premises and the license to carry on a dangerous or offensive (D&O) trade, as prescribed, are distinct aspects, both of which are applicable in the instant case. Defenitely a D&O license cannot be granted when there is no valid license to occuppy the premises. But when a license to occuppy is granted and a person is continued for long years, the D&O license cannot be rejected on the sudden realisation that the grant of license to occupy itself was illegal. A determination of the license to occupy, is a pre-requisite and the eviction has also to be with reasonable time if not by due process as has been held in Sakeer. 13. In this context Raj Restaurant can be usefully referred to. That was also a case in which the D&O license was granted under the statute and later at the time of renewal, the local authority declined it on the premise that the business of restaurant was carried on in a residential building. The principles of natural justice were underlined to find that the rejection was without an opportunity of hearing. Significant also is Sakeer which was relied on by the learned Counsel for the Municipality, to restrain this Court from interfering with the decision of the local authority. 14. The principles of natural justice were underlined to find that the rejection was without an opportunity of hearing. Significant also is Sakeer which was relied on by the learned Counsel for the Municipality, to restrain this Court from interfering with the decision of the local authority. 14. Sakeer considered two writ petitions, one against eviction of licensees by the local authority and the other by the citizens against the local authority, for having permitted occupation of premises of the local authority by private individuals for long, without a care for the revenue it could generate, which if generated could be put to use for public purposes. The Court framed four issues of which only two need be referred to for our purposes i.e. the maintainability of the writ petition in the face of a suit by the licensees and the aspect of due process of law to be followed, for eviction of a licensee as distinguished from a tenant. On the first issue the Court found that there was a suit filed and the licensees were entitled to seek for redressal of their grievance by seeking restitution. But despite such finding, the Court was not inclined to non-suit them in the writ proceedings on grounds of alternative remedy. The licensee however was found to be only entitled to a reasonable time to vacate and in that case the petitioners/licensees were found to be dis-entitled to seek an equitable relief for varied reasons, of being defaulters, trespassers and having approached the Court without proper authorisation. None of these apply to the petitioner herein. 15. Admittedly the petitioner was in possession from 1993 onwards, as is indicated from Exhibit P1. The Municipality had also been collecting rent from the petitioner for the premises all these years. The contention raised of the premises being put to use for other purposes other than for which it was granted is raised based, on the transfer made from the Revenue to the local authority by order dated 20.08.1971, produced at Exhibit R7(1). The threat of resumption of the property raised, is based on Exhibit R7(2) from the District Collector. In the said communication, the District Collector has pointed out that the land transferred to the Municipality was for establishing a parking place for taxies, in which there was a shop room constructed and leased out, which was against the specific transfer made by the Government. In the said communication, the District Collector has pointed out that the land transferred to the Municipality was for establishing a parking place for taxies, in which there was a shop room constructed and leased out, which was against the specific transfer made by the Government. The said communication is also dated 09.02.2015. It is not clear as to whether any eviction proceedings were taken based on the communication from the District Collector or even attempted a determination of the license. The earlier proceeding also was only with respect to the eviction from the premises, in excess of which the petitioner was put in possession of. The demolition order, which was issued against the petitioner and challenged before the Tribunal, also dealt with only un-authorised constructions made by the petitioner in excess of the space conceded to him. 16. The earlier litigation concluded with Exhibit P8 judgment which has now acquired finality. Therein also, it was noticed specifically that the consideration of issuance of license was not made only for reason of the unauthorised construction. Hence, even at that point of time there was no eviction proceedings initiated against the petitioner, though proposed; which has to be necessarily proceeded with under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971. This Court had, in Exhibit P8, found against the contention of the petitioner with respect to the additional space he was occupying. The petitioner was found to be entitled to occupy only 16.98 square meters. The petitioner later, is said to have demolished the unauthorised construction made in the excess space. Though there is a contention raised by the learned Counsel appearing for the Municipality that still the petitioner is in occupation of space in excess of 16.98 square meters, it is to be noticed that the rejection of the D&O License or the eviction was not on that count. 17. Exhibits P14 and P15 are the respective orders rejecting D&O License and evicting the petitioner. The rejection of the D&O License by Exhibit P14 dated 30.11.2016 was only on account of the petitioner being in possession of a premise which was part of a land transferred from the Government to the Municipality for the specific purpose of establishing parking space for taxies. The rejection was on the ground of the petitioner being in illegal possession of the said premises. The rejection was on the ground of the petitioner being in illegal possession of the said premises. It cannot at all be said that the petitioner was in illegal possession, since admittedly it was the Municipality who put him in possession of the premises, also for the purpose of conducting a shop. The Municipality also had issued a D&O License, which was renewed regularly and valid even for the previous year. The Municipality had in fact inducted the petitioner into the said premises and by permitting him to carry on a shop therein, had violated the conditions of grant. On realising the same, the Municipality is entitled to proceed against the petitioner for eviction; but the same cannot be carried out in an arbitrary manner as has been done here. 18. In the present case, it is to be noticed that immediately after the rejection of D&O License without any further notice, the petitioner was issued with Exhibit P15 dated 30.11.2016, served on 01.12.2016 and eviction effected on 02.12.2016. As pointedly referred to by the petitioners Counsel; the Municipality had merely acted in the capacity of the local authority, in rejecting the application for D&O license and was yet to initiate any action in the capacity of the owner of the premises to terminate the license. The eviction was effected on merely refusing to renew the D&O license, which led to the further demolition of the building. It cannot but be said that the Secretary had acted in a high handed and arbitrary fashion in having effected eviction in such a manner. 19. The petitioner had been issued with a D&O License, valid till last year. For the present year the consideration was not made for reason of the petitioner having made some un-authorised construction. The said defect is said to have been cured by the petitioner and then the renewal application submitted on directions by this Court in Exhibit P8, had to be considered with notice to the petitioner. Further, the eviction could have been made only in accordance with law and with notice to the petitioner. Sakeer was in the peculiar facts disclosed in that case and it cannot at all be said that there can be a summary eviction of licensees especially in the manner in which it was done here. Further, the eviction could have been made only in accordance with law and with notice to the petitioner. Sakeer was in the peculiar facts disclosed in that case and it cannot at all be said that there can be a summary eviction of licensees especially in the manner in which it was done here. The decision of the Full Bench of the Delhi High Court relied upon in Sakeer; Chandulal v. MCD { AIR 1978 Del. 174 (FB)}, also laid stress on the circumstances, which would negative the intention to create a tenancy; which otherwise would be the prima facie presumption in favour of a person who is in exclusive possession of the property. The facts revealed here of a continuous possession from 1993 and the license issued to carry on a trade, renewed periodically and the rent accepted regularly would restrain this Court from permitting a summary eviction. 20. It is pertinent that this Court had specifically left liberty to the Municipality to take out proceedings for eviction, if so desired; but it was never intended that the eviction would be made in such a manner. As of now, the petitioner has been put back on orders of this Court. The petitioner had been inducted into the premises validly and if the Municipality does not intend to continue the license, by reason of the threat from the Government of resumption of the properly, definitely a notice would have to be issued determining the license and then proceedings issued in accordance with law. As far as the D&O Licence, it has to be found that the petitioner was in occupation of the room and had been continuing his business therein. The petitioner would be permitted to resume the business carried on during the period in which the application for D&O Licence is considered. The Secretary shall issue notice to the petitioner and hear the petitioner and pass further orders on the same. The Municipality, as has been noticed earlier, would also be entitled to move for eviction in accordance with law. 21. The action of the Secretary in abruptly stopping the business of the petitioner and evicting him summarily from the premises in which he had been continuing for long has to be deprecated in the strongest terms. The Municipality, as has been noticed earlier, would also be entitled to move for eviction in accordance with law. 21. The action of the Secretary in abruptly stopping the business of the petitioner and evicting him summarily from the premises in which he had been continuing for long has to be deprecated in the strongest terms. The allegation raised in explanation is that the petitioner had been continuing illegally with the active support of the Vice-Chairman of the erstwhile Council of the Municipality, who is also the petitioners brother. If that be so the Secretary owes an explanation to this Court, as to why during the tenure of the earlier Council the Secretary, an officer in the administrative service of the State, did not bring it to the notice of the Council and how, the petitioners alleged illegal occupation suddenly assumed a vicious colour; merely for change in the political equations of the Council. Pertinent also is the fact that at the earlier round the only objection in the renewal of D&O license was the un-authorised occupation. The petitioner asserts he has vacated the same and the Secretary resists such assertion in the counter-affidavit, with an irresponsible statement that, 'the omission was not seriously reacted to in view of more important work' (sic-para 12 of counter-affidavit dated 12.12.2016). In this context it cannot but be emphasised that the order rejecting renewal of D&O license or that evicting the petitioner does not take, the un-authorised occupation, as a ground. The Secretary hence is imposed with a cost of Rs.10,000/- which shall be paid to the petitioner in partial compensation of the injury occasioned by the high handed action of eviction, which shall not in any way affect a suit for damages if initiated by the petitioner. The Municipality shall ensure that the cost is paid before any eviction is attempted. The Municipality shall also be entitled to pay the cost and recover it from the Secretary. 22. The writ petition is allowed setting aside Exhibit P14 & P15. The contempt case is closed, since no deliberate contempt is found and in this proceeding it has not been established as to who was responsible for the demolition of the building. The remedy of the petitioner to prosecute the criminal case, if any filed, and for damages is left open. Costs as ordered above.