IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 35813 of 2008(L)
1. M/S.VICTORY MARITIME AGENCIES,
... Petitioner
2. P.P.FAROOQ, S/O.ABDUL KHADER, AGED 50
3. P.P.MOHAMMED ASHRAF, S/O.HAMEED,
Vs
1. THE SENIOR PORT CONSERVATOR,
... Respondent
2. THE PORT OFFICER OF KOZHIKODE,
3. THE DIRECTOR OF PORTS, KERALA,
4. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE
For Petitioner :SRI.R.SURENDRAN
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :03/02/2009
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
-------------------------
W.P.(C.) No.35813 of 2008
---------------------------------
Dated, this the 3rd day of February, 2009
J U D G M E N T
The petitioners seek a declaration that Ext.P6 order of
termination dated 25/11/2008 is illegal. There is also a prayer to
quash Ext.P8 and to direct the 1st respondent to issue dredging
licence to the 1st petitioner.
2. Admittedly, the petitioners were granted manual
dredging licence on a monthly basis, the period of which expired on
30/11/2008. All such licences have been cancelled, and there is no
dispute on that factual position. If that be so, their grievance at best
can be that the licence has been prematurely terminated from
25/11/2008.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners relied on Ext.P4
judgment and contended that the respondents could not pick and
choose licencees. It is stated that having chosen to issue licence, the
respondents could not have chosen only the Co-operative Society. I
am unable to accept this contention, for the reason that from the
additional documents produced by the petitioners, it would appear
WP(C) No.35813/2008
-2-
that as against the individual licences that were granted till
30/11/2008, the respondents have now chosen to grant exclusive
licence to a Co-operative Society. Only in the event individuals are
arbitrarily chosen, can the petitioners complain that they have been
discriminated. Since the system of granting individual licence is
dispensed with and exclusive licence is granted to a Co-operative
Society, the petitioners also cannot plead discrimination.
4. In any event, since the petitioners’ licence expired on
30/11/2008, they cannot seek any direction from this Court
requiring the respondents to continue the licence any further. For
these reasons, I am not inclined to grant the relief sought for in this
writ petition.
The writ petition fails, and is, accordingly, dismissed.
(ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE)
jg