Kerala High Court
Kuriakose Sabu vs Shri. Thomas Sebastian
Author: K. Vinod Chandran
Bench: K.Vinod Chandran
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN
MONDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF OCTOBER 2016/9TH KARTHIKA, 1938
WP(C).No. 18689 of 2009 (E)
----------------------------
PETITIONER :
-----------------------
KURIAKOSE SABU, AGED 45 YEARS,
MANAING PARTNER, KAVUNGAL GRANITES SALES DEPOT,
KURUVAMUZHY.P.O., KORATTY, ERUMELI,
KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SRI.K.M.SATHYANATHA MENON
RESPONDENT(S):
--------------------------
1. SHRI. THOMAS SEBASTIAN, S/O.N.D.DEVASIA,
NAGATHUNKAL HOUSE, KURUVAMUZHY.P.O.,
KORATTY, ERUMELI.
2. THE KANJIRAPPALLY GRAMA PANCHAYATH,
KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
3. THE SECRETARY,KANJIRAPPALLY GRAMA PANCHAYATH,
KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.
R1 BY ADV. SRI.SUNIL CYRIAC
R2 & R3 BY ADV. SRI.V.K.SUNIL
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 31-10-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
sts
WP(C).NO.18689/2009
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
P1 COPY OF THE LICENSE ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY,KANJIRAPPALLY
GRAMA PANCHAYATH IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER DATED 10/12/07.
P2 COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE TAHSILDAR, KANJIRAPPALLY TO THE
MANAGER OF THE PETITIONER DATED 07/4/2008.
P3 COPY OF THE REPORT FILED BY THE ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER OF
KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, DISTRICT OFFICE, KOTTAYAM
IN WP(C).NO.12386/2008 DATED 4/7/08
P4 COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C).NO.12386/08 DATED 02/12/08
P5 COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C).NO.16508/08 DATED 3/6/08
P6 COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY OF THE GRAMA
PANCHAYATH DATED 15/07/08
P7 COPY OF THE APPEAL SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE
PANCHAYATH COMMITTEE DATED 31/7/08
P8 COPY OF THE NOTICE FOR PERSONAL HEARING ISSUED BY THE
PANCHAYATH COMMITTEE TO THE PETITIONER DATED 27/08/08
P9 COPY OF THE COVERING LETTER AND THE DECISION OF THE GRAMA
PANCHAYATH COMMITTEE DATED 9/1/09
P10 COPY OF THE LICENSE ISSUED BY THE GRAMA PANCHAYATH TO THE
PETITIONER DATED 14/1/2009
P11 COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED
05/2/2008
P12 COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE PETITIONER
DATED 5/3/2009
P13 COPY OF THE APPEAL SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT BEFORE THE
TRIBUNAL FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS, TRIVANDRUM
DATED 20/3/09
P14 COPY OF THE STATEMENT FILED BY THE GRAMA PANCHAYATH IN APPEAL
NO.222/09 BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT
INSTITUTIONS, TRIVANDRUM DATED 20/4/09
P15 COPY OF THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT
INSTITUTIONS, TRIVANDRUM DATED 21/5/2009
2/-
-2-
WP(C).NO.18689/2009
P16 COPY OF THE BILL OF THE MOTOR BY DECCAN ENTERPRISE DATED
P17 COPY OF THE BILL ISSUED BY DECCAN ENTERPRISES FOR THE PURCHASE
OF MATERIALS FOR FIXING THE SPRINKLERS DATED 10/1/08.
RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL
/TRUE COPY/
P.A.TO JUDGE
sts
K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.
------------------------------------------
W.P.(C) No. 18689 of 2009 (E)
------------------------------------------
Dated: 31st October, 2016
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner is before this Court challenging Ext.P15 order of the Tribunal.
2. Ext.P15 found that the petitioner is not entitled to renewal of D&O license for the year 2009-2010 on the basis of the licenses issued earlier. The clear finding was that the earlier license issued for the period 2007-2008 was for stocking and sale of crusher materials without using any machinery. The subsequent application, filed for the year 2008-2009, shows the license being sought for operating the unit using 5 HP electric motors. The Tribunal found that such an application for renewal cannot be entertained, since the petitioner would have to first obtain a W.P.(C) No. 18689/2009 -2- permission to establish, as provided under Section 233 of the Kerala Panchayath Raj Act, 1994 ('Act' for short)
3. The petitioner, before the Tribunal, claimed that he had consent to establish issued from the Pollution Control Board. Even then, rightly, the Tribunal found that the consent to establish can only be placed before the Council for consideration under Section 233 of the Act. The license issued to the petitioner for the year 2009-2010 also was found to be only for stocking and sale and not for operation of any machinery. The license bearing No.A2-L 485/2008-09 dated 14.01.2009, produced at Ext.P10, was found to be one issued without a proper application for permit under Section 233 of the Act. This Court is not inclined to interfere with Ext.P15 order. However, the Tribunal itself had made it clear that the petitioner would be entitled to move a proper application for permit under W.P.(C) No. 18689/2009 -3- Section 233 of the Act.
Without any reservation being expressed with respect to such an application, the writ petition would stand dismissed. No Costs.
Sd/-
K.VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE jjj 1/11/16