Case BriefsHigh Courts

Gujarat High Court: A.Y. Kogje, J. passed an order of release of a vehicle involved in transporting mineral / illegal mining after imposing certain conditions. 

A petition was filed under Articles 14, 19, 21 and 226 of the Constitution of India to release the vehicle which was seized under the provisions of Gujarat Mineral (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Storage and Transportation) Rules, 2017 for it being involved in transporting mineral / illegal mining.

Kruti M. Shah, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he was ready to pay the penalty amount that may be specified by the authority after completion of entire proceedings at the departmental level or upon the completion of the trial if any.

Vrunda Shah, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the vehicle was found involved in the illegal mining activity and therefore, the department has acted as per the provisions of Rules of 2017 and as the petitioner was not ready and willing to compound the offence, the vehicle could not have been released.

High court on noting the submission by the parties held that authorized officer was obliged to release the vehicle the moment the person alleged whose vehicle is involved in illegal mining activity furnishes the bank guarantee or the security deposit. The Court thus ordered the authorized officer to release the vehicle after complying with the certain mandatory conditions.[Mohammadkhan Karimkhan Ghori v. State of Gujarat, 2019 SCC OnLine Guj 838, decided on 09-05-2019]

Case BriefsSupreme Court

Supreme Court: The bench of V. Gopala Gowda and A.K. Goel, JJ, while deciding the question as to whether the consent of the owner of the premises is necessary for renewal of tenant’s licence under the Section 492(3) of the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994, held that the requirement of consent of landlord is applicable only when a person intends to obtain a licence for the first time. It was held that renewal or subsequent application for obtaining licence on expiry of the period of the existing licence, during the currency of the tenancy, is not applicable for obtaining licence. However, the Court clarified that even in the case of application for obtaining licence for the first time, the tenant cannot be deprived of running lawful business merely because the landlord withheld the consent as valid tenancy itself has implied authority of the landlord for legitimate use of the premises by the tenant.

While interpreting the Section 492 (3) of the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994, the Tribunal and the single bench of Kerala High Court had said that Under Section 492(3) of the Kerala Municipality Act, a consent of the owner is needed only for obtaining licence for the first time. Since the petitioner has not applied for licence for the first time the Corporation cannot impose a condition for obtaining a consent from the landlord. It was further held that The Corporation cannot insist upon such a tenant for production of a written consent from the landlord for the purpose of issuing of the licence. A statutory tenant can be evicted from the leased premises only in accordance with the various provisions contained in the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965.

The Court, noting that since the possession of the tenant is lawful, the landlord is not entitled to withhold his consent for the conduct of the business for which the premises were given on rent, agreed with the abovementioned view and hence, set aside the order of the division bench of the High Court, thereby, restoring the order of the Tribunal as affirmed by the Single Bench of the High Court. [Sudhakaran v. Corp. of Trivandrum, 2016 SCC OnLine SC 666, decided on 05.07.2016]