M/S. Victory Maritime Agencies vs The Senior Port Conservator on 8 April, 2009

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WA.No. 558 of 2009(A)


1. M/S. VICTORY MARITIME AGENCIES,
                      ...  Petitioner
2. P.P.FAROOQ S/O. ABDUL KHADER,
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,

4. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY

5. KANNUR BUILDING MATERIALS (MARKETING)

                For Petitioner  :SRI.K.P.DANDAPANI (SR.)

                For Respondent  :SRI.P.V.SURENDRANATH

The Hon'ble the Chief Justice MR.S.R.BANNURMATH
The Hon'ble MR. Justice KURIAN JOSEPH

 Dated :08/04/2009

 O R D E R
        S.R.BANNURMATH, C.J. & KURIAN JOSEPH, J.
             ----------------------------------------------
                     W.A. No.558 of 2009
             ----------------------------------------------
                    Dated 8th April, 2009.

                         J U D G M E N T

Kurian Joseph, J.

Appellants are the writ petitioners. They approached

this court aggrieved by the cancellation of their licence for

dredging sand from Azheekkal Port. The main grievance appears

to be that the cancellation is in violation of Ext.P4 judgment,

wherein the learned Single Judge had held that in case licences

are given to individuals for manual dredging, there cannot be

discrimination among the workers. It appears from the pleadings

that thereafter, a decision was taken by the Port Officer as per

Ext.P16 to cancel all the individual licences and limit the licence

to a Workers’ Cooperative Society. Sri.K.P.Dandapani, learned

Senior Counsel submits that such a decision was taken only to get

over Ext.P4 judgment of this court and that is evident from the

affidavit seeking extension of time for complying with Ext.P4

judgment. But we find from the pleadings that Ext.P16 was not

under challenge before the learned Single Judge. The learned

Single Judge only referred to the decision to entrust the dredging

licence to the Cooperative Society. On going through the

WA NO.558/09 2

contentions taken in the appeal, we find that those are all

materials for the writ petitioners to have produced before the

learned Single Judge. Faced with such a situation, the petitioners

seek an opportunity to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to

file a fresh writ petition, incorporating all the necessary

pleadings. Having heard the counsel on both sides also, we are

of the view that it is only appropriate that such an opportunity is

given to the writ petitioners. Accordingly, we set aside the

judgment under appeal, dismiss the writ petition as withdrawn

with liberty to the writ petitioners to file a fresh writ petition,

incorporating all the pleadings.

S.R.BANNURMATH,
Chief Justice.

KURIAN JOSEPH,
Judge.

tgs

S.R.BANNURMATH, C. J. &

KURIAN JOSEPH, J.

———————————————-

W.A. No.558 of 2009

———————————————-

J U D G M E N T

Dated 8th April, 2009.