M/S. Mangalam Travels … vs The Secretary To Government on 24 January, 2008

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 2960 of 2008(B)


1. M/S. MANGALAM TRAVELS (REPRESENTED
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE PROTECTOR GENERAL OF EMIGRANTS,

3. THE INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.M.AJAY

                For Respondent  :SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASST.SOLICITOR

The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC

 Dated :24/01/2008

 O R D E R
                    ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
                   -------------------------------------------
                     W.P.(C) No.2960 of 2008
                  -------------------------------------------
             Dated this the 24th day of January, 2008



                              JUDGMENT

Petitioner submits that it was granted Ext.P1 license under

the provisions of the Emigration Act 1983. That license was

eventually cancelled vide Ext.P11 order dated 11.1.2008 issued

by the second respondent. Petitioner has a case that before the

cancellation of the license, it had already expired on 16.7.2007.

2. Be that as it may, Ext.P11 order was challenged by

filing an appeal before the first respondent invoking Section 23

of the Emigration Act. Along with Ext.P12 appeal, petitioner has

also filed Ext.P13 application for stay of further proceedings

pursuant to Ext.P11 pending disposal of the appeal. It is

submitted that in the meanwhile, in implementation of Ext.P11,

the second respondent directed the third respondent Bank to

invoke the bank guarantee furnished by the petitioner as

security for the license. It is in this context, the writ petition

has been filed.

WPC2960/2008 2

3. From the facts, it is obvious that aggrieved by

Ext.P11, petitioner is pursuing the statutory remedy available to

him under Section 23 of the Emigration Act. The appeal so filed

by the petitioner is also pending consideration of the first

respondent. At this stage, I do not think it is proper for the

respondents to invoke the bank guarantee furnished as security

to Ext.P1 license.

Therefore, I dispose of this writ petition directing that the

first respondent shall consider Ext.P12 appeal as expeditiously

as possible and with notice to the petitioner. This shall be done

at any rate within three months of a production of a copy of this

judgment. In the meantime, further proceedings pursuant to the

bank guarantee furnished by the petitioner in implementation of

Ext. P11 order shall be kept in abeyance.

ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE
csl