Loading...

Rajendran vs Mundackal Grama Panchayath on 8 February, 2007

Kerala High Court
Rajendran vs Mundackal Grama Panchayath on 8 February, 2007
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 848 of 2007(A)


1. RAJENDRAN, S/O. SREEDHARAN,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. MUNDACKAL GRAMA PANCHAYATH,
                       ...       Respondent

2. KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD,

3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.THOMAS ABRAHAM

                For Respondent  :SRI.AYYAPPAN SANKAR

The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE

 Dated :08/02/2007

 O R D E R


                           PIUS C. KURIAKOSE,J.

                  - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

                            W.P.(C)No.848 of 2007

                  - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

                          Dated: 8th February, 2007


                                   JUDGMENT

Mr.Thomas Abraham, counsel for the petitioner submits that on

17.1.2007 the petitioner was actually served with an order by the

Panchayat cancelling the licence. Counsel for the Panchayat takes

exception to the above submission. According to the counsel, the

order was passed on 3.1.2007 and was served on the petitioner on

the same day itself.

2. Obviously, the order cancelling the licence is subject to

appeal.

3. Mr.Blaze K.Jose who appears for the 4th respondent in

W.P.C.No.36418/05 submits that this court may not direct

continuance of the interim order which is passed on 8.1.2007.

According to Mr.Blaze, that interim order is misinterpreted and the

writ petitioner is violating Exts.P1 and P5 in W.P.C.No.36418/05.

4. Since it is conceded that the order cancelling the licence is

appealable, I dispose of the Writ Petition relegating the petitioner to

his remedy by way of appeal. The interim order dated 8.1.2007 will

continue for a period of one more month. However, it is clarified that

the interim order will not enable the petitioner to embark upon any

activity other than what was permitted under the licence which was

W.P.C.No.848/07 – 2 –

presently cancelled. I make it clear that I have not expressed any

opinion on the merits of the matter and that all questions are left

open to be decided by the appellate authority.

srd                                                     PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE


Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies. More Information