Gyms have to obtain licence under Places of Public Resort Act: Kerala High Court

The Kerala High Court on Monday held that a licence under the Kerala Places of Public Resort Act, 1963 is necessary for opening and running a gymnasium in the State [Dhanya C & Anr. v State of Kerala & Ors.]..Justice PV Kunhikrishnan also directed the State government to issue directions to the authorities concerned to send notices to gyms functioning without the required licence so that they can procure the same within a period of three months without any disruption to their business."As long as the Act, 1963 (Kerala Places of Public Resort Act) is in force, the gymnasiums should obtain a licence from the statutory authority. The 1st respondent (State government) 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. Sufficient time should be given to the gymnasiums to get licence. No gymnasium shall be closed down immediately for the reason that there is no licence as per the Act, 1963 till a reasonable time of three months is granted to them," the judgment stated.The Court also observed that even though gyms have become an indispensable part of modern life, they must function lawfully, after acquiring all the licences mandated by the statute."Gymnasium have become a holy places 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 said in its judgment..There were two petitions for consideration before the Court - one challenging the functioning and noise caused by a gym which did not have a licence from the concerned municipality, and the other filed by a gym challenging the municipality's refusal to grant it a licence under the Act. The Standing Counsel for the municipality opposed the petitions arguing that the Act is no longer applicable after the Kerala Municipality Act was enacted in 1964.However, the Government Pleader placed on record a letter from the State addressed to the Advocate General which stated that a licence is required to run a gym as per the Act.The Court rejected the contentions of the municipality and opined that it was bound to follow the directions of the State. The Court also derided the Standing Counsel of the municipality for continuing to press the said contention, even after the Court informed him that it was against the interests of his client."The duty of the lawyer is to take care of the interest of his client and to tell him the exact laws and provisions of the particular case and what are the remedies. He should not hurt the interest of his client by any of his acts and omissions. The stand taken by the counsel of the Municipality will be against section 58 of the Municipality Act. Even after this Court repeatedly alerted the lawyer that he is arguing against the interest of his client, the lawyer stuck to his argument. Only God can save these types of lawyers. I leave it there," the Court observed in its judgment..The Court went through the provisions of the Act that gymnasiums would indeed require a licence which they can procure by sending an application to the secretary of the municipality or the village panchayat. Thereafter, the concerned authority is to inspect the site, suggest any alterations if needed, and may grant or refuse licence and record the reasons for the same in writing. The Court held that automatic rejection, without any inspection or reasoning, was inappropriate. "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. Each objection is to be considered on its merits and an inspection of the premises based on the objection raised is necessary from the side of the municipality," the Court held and set aside the order of the municipality rejecting the one of the petitioner's application for licence. In the petition which raised complaints against a gym, the Court allowed it to function without playing any music until it procures a licence, which must be done within a period of 3 months..[Read Judgment]