Licence Under Places Of Public Resort Act Is Compulsory To Run A Gym: Kerala High Court

The Kerala High Court on Monday ruled that a licence under the Kerala Places of Public Resort Act, 1963 is necessary for starting and functioning a gymnasium in the State as long as the Act remains in force.

Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan thereby directed the State to instruct all Municipalities, Corporations and Panchayats to send notices to the gyms in the State functioning without a license within 3 weeks. 

"When this writ petition came up for consideration, the counsel for the Municipality and the Government Pleader submitted that several gymnasiums are working in the State of Kerala without a licence as per the Act, 1963. As long as the Act, 1963 is in force, the gymnasiums should obtain a licence from the statutory authority. The 1st respondent will give necessary instructions to all the Corporations, Municipalities and Panchayats to send a notice to the gymnasiums working in their area of operation if they are functioning without licence as per the Act 1963."

The Court added that gyms have become an integral part of life in this era and that as much as it appreciates the shift to a healthy lifestyle, the same should function lawfully.

"Gymnasium have become a holy place like temples, mosques, churches etc for the young and the older people alike in the current world. Going to the gym is taken as a credit by men and women of all age groups. That is a good signal for achieving a healthy world. But the atmosphere in a Gymnasium should be attractive, and it should function legally after obtaining all the statutory licences."

The Court was adjudicating upon two petitions; one that challenged the functioning of a neighbouring fitness centre without obtaining a licence from the concerned Municipality, and another filed by a gym aggrieved by the refusal to issue a license by the Municipality. 

The Government Pleader had produced a recent letter from the State addressed to the Advocate General, which clearly stated that a licence is necessary to run a gymnasium as per the Act.

Although the Standing Counsel for the Municipality contended that the Act is not applicable after the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994 came into force, the Court was not convinced of this argument. The Judge emphasised that the Municipality was bound by the directions issued by the State. 

On a different note, it added that the Standing Counsel was arguing against the interest of his client, which was frowned upon by the Court. 

The note file from the Municipality which considered the application submitted by the petitioner-gym for licence revealed that the Municipality dismissed the application since there was an objection against the same. Upon examining Section 7(b), the Court disagreed with the stand taken by the Municipality.

"Sec.7(b) only says that if the authority is satisfied that no objection arising from its situation, ownership, possession or the purpose proposed exists, the authority shall give the applicant a written licence signed by him specifying the enclosure or building and the purpose for which it is used. This does not mean that if there is an objection, the licence can be rejected."

The Judge also observed that the objection raised should be reasonable and the licensing authority should be satisfied that the objection is genuine. It was added that merely because an objection is raised, the application for a licence cannot be automatically rejected while clarifying that this would permit anyone to prevent a gym from getting a licence by simply filing an objection. 

"If any objection is raised, the licensing authority should inspect the premises and find out whether the objection is genuine and whether there is any grievance to the objector. Simply because a person submits an objection, there is no automatic rejection of the licence...Simply because in the section it is not clearly stated that the ground of objection should be considered by the licensing authority, the licensing authority cannot reject an application based on an objection, without considering the genuineness of the objection. If such a stand of the Municipality is accepted, anybody can stall the functioning of a gymnasium by simply submitting an objection, without any reason."

Therefore, it was concluded that each objection should be considered on its merits and an inspection of the premises based on the objection raised is necessary by the Municipality before deciding if the objection is sustainable. Further, the licensing authority was required to inspect the premises of the applicants after serving notice to the objector as well as the applicant.

While holding that a license under the Act is mandatory, the Judge also made it clear that sufficient time of 3 months should be given to the gymnasiums to obtain such licence and that no gyms should be closed down immediately for lack of licence under the Act.

Therefore, the State was asked to issue a general direction to all the Corporations, Municipalities, and Panchayats to find out if any gymnasiums were functioning in their area of operation without getting a licence as per the Act and if so, a notice was to be issued to those gymnasiums to get a licence within three months.

"Till notice is issued to the individual gymnasiums for getting licence as per the Kerala Places of Public Resort Act, 1963, their functioning shall not be disturbed, for a period of three months from the date of receipt of the notice demanding the necessity of getting a licence."

The registry was directed to forward a copy of the judgment to the State forthwith for the State to issue the general direction as directed above within 3 weeks. 

Advocate L.Rajesh Narayan, the Advocate General's office, Government Pleader Vidya Kuriakose, Standing Counsel R.T Pradeep, T, Naveen and Advocate Sindhu Santhalingam appeared in the matter. 

Case Title: Dhanya & Anr v. State of Kerala & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 340

Click Here To Read/Download The Order