IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 22194 of 2009(T)
1. LEMBI DEVASSY ,S/O.DEVASSY
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE SECRETARY ,G.C.D.A
... Respondent
2. THE CORPORATION OF KOCHI
3. THE HEALTH OFFICER,
4. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF AGRCULTURE
For Petitioner :SRI.S.R.SREEJITH
For Respondent :SRI.M.K.THANKAPPAN,SC,GCDA,GREATER COCH
The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.GIRI
Dated :27/08/2009
O R D E R
V.GIRI,J.
-------------------------
W.P ( C) No.22194 of 2009
--------------------------
Dated this the 27th August,2009
J U D G M E N T
Petitioner claims to be the beneficiary under a
scheme called ‘Mission for Kerala’s Development and
Poverty Alleviation (vision 2010) Scheme on value
addition and post harvest Management” . Under the said
Scheme, he claims to have been allotted with a Elaneer
Parlour Unit and he availed a loan of Rs.50,000/- from the
State Bank of India. He made an application before the 1st
respondent seeking a license to conduct a Tender Coconut
Parlour Unit. He was then told that by Ext.P1 that he will
have to obtain a No Objection Certificate from the 3rd
respondent, the Health Officer, Corporation of Kochi.
Petitioner then approached the 2nd respondent, Secretary
of the Corporation who directed the petitioner to obtain a
certificate from the concerned bank stating that the Bank
has disbursed the amount and certificate from the 4th
respondent Deputy Director of Agriculture, stating that he
is a member of Special Employment Generation
W.P ( C) No.22194 of 2009
2
Programme for one lakh youth. He was also asked to give
an undertaking to the effect that the petitioner shall
dispose of the waste arising from the running of coconut
Parlour unit and shall comply with the guidelines framed by
the 2nd respondent Corporation.
2. Exts.P2 and P3 evidences that such certificates
have been obtained. Ext.P4 is an undertaking given by the
petitioner. The 3rd respondent then issued NOC as
evidenced by Ext.P5. But the 1st respondent, in spite of all
these, rejected the petitioner’s application for license as
evidenced by Ext.P6, which has been challenged in the writ
petition.
3. A counter affidavit has been filed by the 1st
respondent. Reference is made to Ext. R1(c) resolution
of the Executive Committee.
4. Heard counsel on both sides. First respondent
has not given any reason for rejecting the petitioner’s
application for license. It is now agreed that is permission
sought to conduct a mobile Elaneer vending unit, to be
normally stationed before the International Stadium at
W.P ( C) No.22194 of 2009
3
Kaloor. It cannot be said that the proposal contains any
inherent danger or other factor which would be detrimental
to public interest. Conditions can also be imposed by the
licensing authority in the matter of vending. That is
different from rejecting the application, without any
reasons, whatsoever.
5. Ext.P6 shall therefore stand set aside. The
resolution taken by the Executive Committee of the GCDA
as evidenced by E. R1 (c) shall also therefore be rendered
ineffected. Respondents shall take a fresh decision on the
petitioner’s application in the light of the observations
contained in this judgment within a period of six weeks
from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
Writ petition is disposed of as above.
(V.GIRI,JUDGE)
ma
W.P ( C) No.22194 of 2009
4
W.P ( C) No.22194 of 2009
5