SHAJAHAN Y. Vs. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS ADDL. CHIEF SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has approached this Court aggrieved by Ext.P1 order of the Geologist, that refuses to renew a dealers license that was issued to the petitioner for the year 2016- 2017, and also by Ext.P2 communication received from the 6th respondent Panchayat which insists on the petitioner producing various documents as a pre-condition for considering his application for renewal of the D and O licence. It is the case of the petitioner in the writ petition that, the mere pendency of a vigilance enquiry, in which there is no positive finding against the petitioner, cannot be a reason for the respondent not renewing the license already issued to the petitioner in the previous year.

(2.) I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the learned Standing counsel for the 6th respondent Panchayat and the learned Government Pleader for the official respondents.

(3.) On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made across the bar, I find that, against Ext.P1 communication of the Geologist, which intimates the petitioner that his application for renewal of the dealers license under the Kerala Minerals (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Storage and Transportation) Rules, 2015, cannot be considered, the petitioner has an effective alternative remedy by way of filing an appeal before the appellate authority under Rule 27 of the said Rules. Accordingly, without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to move the appellate authority in terms of Rule 27 of the said Rules, the challenge in the writ petition against Ext.P1 order of the Geologist is rejected. As regards the application submitted by the petitioner before the 6th respondent Panchayat, for renewal of the D and O license, I find that, in Ext.P2 communication that was sent by the Panchayat, the Panchayat only required the petitioner to produce certain documents for consideration of his application on merits. It is the case of the petitioner in the writ petition that the said documents sought for by the Panchayat are already available with the Panchayat, and therefore, there is nothing that prevents the Panchayat from considering the said documents and his application for renewal of D and O license on merits. I note from the documents produced in the writ petition that the documents relied upon by the petitioner are not seen addressed to the 6th respondent Panchayat through any communication produced by the petitioner. Accordingly, I am of the view that, Ext.P2 can only be viewed as a notice that requires the petitioner to produce documents for consideration of his application for renewal of the D and O license for the year 2017-2018. Accordingly, I direct the petitioner to submit the documents, that are sought for in Ext.P2, before the respondent Panchayat within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. I also direct the 6th respondent Panchayat to consider the application for renewal submitted by the petitioner, in the light of the documents to be submitted by the petitioner pursuant to the direction in this judgment, on merits, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of the the documents from the petitioner and after hearing the petitioner. The petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgement, together with a copy of the writ petition before the 5th and 6th respondents for further action.