M.Prabhash vs The State Of Kerala on 3 March, 2009

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 2416 of 2009(K)


1. M.PRABHASH, CHAKKALAYIL,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
                       ...       Respondent

2. VALAKOM GRAMA PANCHAYATH,

3. JOY.M.M., MAPPILAKUNNEL HOUSE,

4. VARKEY OUSEPH, S/O.VARKEY VARKEY,

5. SKARIA, S/O.VARKEY OUSEPH,

6. SANTHOSH P.K., PADINY ARAKUDIYIL,

                For Petitioner  :SMT.MINI.R.MENON

                For Respondent  :SRI.PHILIP T.VARGHESE

The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN

 Dated :03/03/2009

 O R D E R
                            S. Siri Jagan, J.
               =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
                      W. P (C) No. 2416 of 2009
               =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
                   Dated this, the 3rd March, 2009.

                           J U D G M E N T

The petitioner is operating a metal crusher unit within the area

of the 2nd respondent-Panchayat. The licence for the same expired on

31-12-2008. The petitioner submitted Ext. P1 application dated 5-1-

2009 for renewal of the licence. The petitioner submits the petitioner

could not submit the application for renewal earlier because the

consent from the Pollution Control Board was received only on 1-1-

2009. The petitioner’s grievance is that without passing orders on the

renewal application, the Panchayat is taking coercive proceedings

against the functioning of the metal crusher unit.

2. I have heard counsel for the petitioner, counsel for the

Panchayat as also counsel for respondents 4 to 6.

3. When a licensee files an application for renewal of the

licence, the Panchayat has a duty to consider and pass appropriate

orders thereon in accordance with law either way. It is not disputed

that Ext. P1 application for renewal of licence has been submitted by

the petitioner. That being so, the 2nd respondent shall dispose of Ext.

P1 expeditiously.

In the facts and circumstances of the case, I dispose of this writ

petition with a direction to the 2nd respondent-Panchayat to consider

and pass orders on Ext. P1 as expeditiously as possible, at any rate,

within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment,

after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner as well

as the representative of respondents 3 to 6. Till orders are passed on

Ext. P1, status quo as on today shall be maintained.

S. Siri Jagan, Judge.

Tds/