JUDGMENT : The petitioner, who is stated to be running a hotel namely, Amrita Hotel in Ward No.XXVIII of Kayamkulam Municipality, has filed this writ petition seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P3 order and seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the 2nd respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on his application for issuing licence to run the hotel. 2. The pleadings and materials on record would show that, while the petitioner was conducting the hotel in question he was served with a memo dated 23.1.2007 by the 2nd respondent Secretary, directing the petitioner to close down the hotel within 24 hours, failing which proceedings will be initiated under Section 337, 440, 447 and 532 of the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994. Accordingly the petitioner submitted an application for licence, which was ackowledged by the Municipality vide receipt No.1477/07 dated 20.2.2007. Due to the inaction on the part of the Municipality in considering the said application, the petitioner approached this Court in W.P.(C).No.6080 of 2007. 3. In the said writ petition the 1st respondent Municipality filed counter affidavit contending, inter alia, that the application for licence submitted by the petitioner was defective as it was not supported by the consent of one Rafiath, who is the landlord of the property in question as per the records of the Municipality. By letter dated 16.3.2007, the petitioner was requested to produce consent letter from the landlord. But the petitioner has not responded to the said letter. 4. In the said writ petition the petitioner filed reply affidavit contending that he had taken the building on rent from one Beena Noushad who had purchased the property as per the sale deed of the year 2005 and she is the absolute owner of that building. The petitioner has also pointed out that he has submitted the application for licence along with the consent letter of the said Beena Noushad. 5. Without going into the merits of the matter, this Court disposed of W.P.(C).No.6080 of 2007 by Ext.P1 judgment dated 5.2.2010 directing that the status-quo obtained following the interim order dated 22.2.2007 will be maintained for a period of one month, for the petitioner to cure the defect in the application, and if he does so, the said interim order will continue to govern the parties till the Municipality issues a decision on that application for licence. 6. 6. Pursuant to the said judgment, the petitioner was directed to submit a fresh application with supporting documents. In para.7 of the writ petition the petitioner has admitted that he could not submit the application within the time limit stipulated in Ext.P1 judgment because the owner of the building was abroad. After obtaining a consent letter from the owner, application for licence was submitted before the 2nd respondent with a delay of 9 days, which was acknowledged by the 2nd respondent on 15.3.2010 vide Ext.P2 receipt. 7. On receipt of such application, the petitioner was informed vide Ext.P3 notice dated 15.3.2010 of the 2nd respondent that he has not submitted the application after curing the defects and as such the Municipality is not in a position to grant licence. According to the petitioner, on receipt of Ext.P3 notice he has sent a reply dated 17.3.2010 stating his grievances against non-issuance of licence, which reply was acknowledged by the 2nd respondent vide Ext.P4 receipt dated 17.3.2010. Thereafter, on 9.7.2010, the officials of the Municipality came to the premises and tried to close down the hotel and it was in such circumstances that the petitioner has approached this Court in this writ petition seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P3 notice and seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the 2nd respondent to consider and pass orders on the application for licence submitted pursuant to Ext.P1 judgment. 8. On 13.7.2010, while admitting the writ petition this Court passed an interim order to keep in abeyance any coercive action against the petitioner for a period of two weeks and the learned Standing Counsel for the Municipality was directed to get instruction within a period of two weeks. Thereafter, the said order was extended further when the learned Standing Counsel for the Municipality sought time to file statement. Later, by order dated 12.11.2010 the interim order was extended until further orders. Thereafter, when the case was listed for final hearing on 3.6.2015 the learned Standing Counsel sought further time to file statement/counter affidavit and accordingly the case was ordered to be posted before non-admission court for disposal. In spite of the specific directions of this Court, the respondent Municipality has not chosen to file any statement/counter affidavit. 9. I heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Standing Counsel for Kayamkulam Municipality, representing the respondents. 10. In spite of the specific directions of this Court, the respondent Municipality has not chosen to file any statement/counter affidavit. 9. I heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Standing Counsel for Kayamkulam Municipality, representing the respondents. 10. The pleadings and materials on record would show that, while the petitioner was running the hotel in question without any statutory licence from the respondent Municipality proceedings were proposed against him under the relevant provisions of the Kerala Municipality Act by issuing a memo dated 23.1.2007, by which he was directed to close down the hotel within 24 hours. The application filed by the petitioner for licence was not considered since it was not supported by the consent letter issued by the landlord. The petitioner approached this Court in W.P.(C).No.6080 of 2007, which was disposed of by Ext.P1 judgment dated 5.2.2010 by which he was directed to cure the defect in the application for licence and in order to enable the petitioner to do so the interim order of status- quo was ordered to be maintained for a period of one month. 11. Pursuant to Ext.P1 judgment the petitioner submitted an application for licence, a copy of which is not placed on record for reasons best known to the petitioner. On receipt of such application, the respondent Municipality issued Ext.P3 notice by which the petitioner was informed that his application for licence cannot be considered since he has not chosen to cure the defects. According to the petitioner, on receipt of Ext.P3, he has submitted a reply dated 17.3.2010, a copy of which is also not placed on record, and the petitioner has produced only Ext.P4 receipt dated 17.3.2010 evidencing acknowledgment of such a reply by the Municipality. 12. Admittedly the petitioner is not the owner of the property in question. In order to obtain licence for running a hotel in the tenanted premises it is the statutory mandate that the application for licence should be supported by the consent obtained from the land owner/landlord. In the absence of such a consent the respondent Municipality cannot consider the application submitted by the petitioner for licence to run the hotel. 13. The averments in the writ petition would not indicate as to whether the petitioner has submitted the consent obtained from the landlord along with his application for licence. In the absence of such a consent the respondent Municipality cannot consider the application submitted by the petitioner for licence to run the hotel. 13. The averments in the writ petition would not indicate as to whether the petitioner has submitted the consent obtained from the landlord along with his application for licence. The petitioner has not even disclosed the name of the landlord who has issued consent for running hotel in the premises in question. The said landlord is also not made a party to this writ petition. 14. In the absence of necessary pleadings supported by relevant materials and due to non-joinder of the landlord who is a necessary party to this proceedings, the legality or otherwise of Ext.P3 notice cannot be adjudicated in this writ petition. Under the guise of the interim order granted by this Court on 13.7.2010, which was extended until further orders on 12.11.2010, the petitioner cannot be permitted to run the hotel indefinitely without taking necessary licence from the respondent Municipality. In such circumstances, this writ petition is closed leaving open all the contentions raised by the petitioner against Ext.P3 notice. It is for the petitioner to take necessary steps to submit application for licence along with the consent letter of the landlord within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment, in which event, the 2nd respondent shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders thereon with notice to the petitioner and also to the landlord concerned, within an outer limit of one month thereafter.