Decided on January 11,2017

K.A. Kochu Makkar Appellant
District Collector, Ernakulam And Others Respondents


A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR,J. - (1.) As the issue involved in both these writ petitions is the same, they are taken up together for consideration, and disposed by this common judgment. For the sake of convenience, the reference to facts and exhibits is from W.P.(C) No.27237 of 2016.
(2.) The petitioner in W.P.(C).No.27237/2016 is the owner of a plywood industry under the name and style of M/s.Perfect Plywoods. It is stated that, the petitioner has got a consent to operate, from the Kerala State Pollution Control Board, and the said consent is valid till 30.06.2018. Ext.P3 is the consent issued to the petitioner by the Pollution Control Board. The petitioner had applied for renewal of trade license from the Panchayath, but the same was not processed by the respondent Panchayath. The petitioner has therefore approached this Court through the present writ petition, aggrieved by the delay occasioned by the Panchayath Authorities in granting a renewal of the license. It is stated that the license originally issued to the petitioner was the subject matter of litigation before this Court and the said litigation ultimately culminated in Ext.P4 order dated 19.04.2016 of the District Collector, whereby the District Collector found that the land belonging to the petitioner, and on which the plywood industry was set up, was not land covered under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act and Rules 2008, and therefore, the earlier order of the District Collector dated 11.10.2011, under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, which had the effect of permitting the petitioner to convert the land and use it for other purposes, would revive. It is stated that, based on Ext.P4 order of the District Collector, the petitioner was entitled to a renewal of trade license for the year 2016-17, and inasmuch as the petitioner had filed the application for the licence, and the same was received by the respondent Panchayath on 15.07.2016, on the expiry of 30 days from the said date, the petitioner was entitled to assume that a deemed license under Section 236(3) of the Panchayath Raj Act had been granted in his favour. The prayer in the writ petition is essentially for a direction to the 2nd respondent Panchayath to grant the petitioner a deemed license in physical format, following the dictum in Sudhakaran v. Pallichal Grama Panchayath [2016(2) KLT 175] .
(3.) The 3rd respondent in the writ petition is the petitioner in W.P.(C).No.1422/2016. In the latter writ petition, the prayer of the 3rd respondent is essentially for a direction to the respondent Panchayath to implement Ext.P11 stop memo, that had been earlier issued to the petitioner in W.P.(C).No.27237/2016. The documents produced in the writ petition would indicate that, while Ext.P11 order of the respondent Panchayath had directed the petitioner in W.P.(C).No.27237/2016 to stop his activities, inter alia on the ground that there was no valid license issued to him to carry out the said activities, by another order dated 15.12.2015 (produced as Ext.P12 in W.P.(C).No.27237/2016), the earlier order (Ext.P11) was cancelled. In this connection, it must be noted that, although in W.P.(C).No.1422/2016, an interim order (produced as Ext.P13 in W.P.(C).No.27237/2016) was passed directing respondents 1 and 3 to enforce Ext.P11 stop memo against the petitioner in W.P.(C). No.27237/2016, the said interim order can have no legal effect after the passing of Ext.P12 order, which cancelled Ext.P11 order that was directed to be implemented by the interim order aforementioned. It is also relevant to note that, with the passing of Ext.P12 order, the prayers sought for in W.P.(C).No.1422/2016 itself have become incapable of being granted, and hence W.P.(C). No.1422/2016 has necessarily to be dismissed as infructuous.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.