Kerala High Court
Neo Classic Boat Cruise & Tours Pvt. Ltd vs Greater Cochin Development Authority ... on 24 April, 2016
Author: Anu Sivaraman
Bench: Anu Sivaraman
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
FRIDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF AUGUST 2018 / 19TH SRAVANA, 1940
WP(C).No. 16249 of 2018
PETITIONER:
NEO CLASSIC BOAT CRUISE & TOURS PVT. LTD.,
GF-6,67/4323,SWAPNIL ENCLAVE,HIGH COURT,JN.MARINE DRIVE,
ERNAKULAM,PIN-682031,
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR,
NISHIJITH.K.JOHN.
BY ADV.SRI.S.SUDHEESH KUMAR
RESPONDENTS:
1. GREATER COCHIN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (G.C.D.A),
P.B.NO.2012,KOCHI-682020.
2. THE COCHIN PORT TRUST,
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN,
WILLINGTON ISLAND,KOCHI-5.
R2 BY ADV. SMT.LATHA ANAND, SC, COCHIN PORT TRUST
R1 BY ADV. SRI.MINI V.A., SC, GCDA
R BY SMT. MINI V.A
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10-08-2018,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
MSP
WP(C).No. 16249 of 2018 (E)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE INCORPORATION CERTIFICATE
DATED 24.4.2016.
EXHIBIT P2(A) TRUE COPY OF THE LICENCE DATED 23.5.2017 ISSUED
BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P2(B) TRUE COPY OF THE LICENCE DATED 3.8.2017
EXHIBIT P2(C) TRUE COPY OFT HE LICENCE DATED 17.10.17
EXHIBIT P2(D) TRUE COPY OF THE LICENCE DATED 17.1.2018
EXHIBIT P2(E) TRUE COPY OF THE LICENE DATED 17.1.2018.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY SUBMITTED BY THE
PETITIONER ON 30.10.2017
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 17.5.2018 ISSUED BY
THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENTS
RESPONDENTS DATED 3-8-2017
EXHIBIT P6(A)TO
(E) SERIES TRUE COPIES OF THE LICENSES ISSUED TO THE VEHICLE UNDER
THE POSSESSION OF THE PETITIONER
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER
TO THE RESPONDENTS DATED 26-05-2018
EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ISSUED BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT.
RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT R2(A) TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 06.02.2018
//TRUE COPY//
P.A. TO JUDGE
MSP
ANU SIVARAMAN, J.
--------------------------------
W.P.(C) No. 16249 of 2018
---------------------------------
Dated this the 10th day of August, 2018
JUDGMENT
------------------
The petitioner has approached this Court seeking the following prayers:-
i) To issue a writ of certiorari calling for the records leading to Ext.P4 and set aside the same.
ii) To direct the respondents to make alternative arrangements by constructing special jetties for the tour operators and thereafter only the demand in Ext.P4 would be persuaded.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 1st respondent as well as the learned counsel appearing for the 2 nd respondent.
3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the 2 nd respondent that the petitioner had been informed that the petitioner has to get a No objection from the 1 st respondent for the purpose of consideration of any application for permission to construct and operate a boat jetty. The W.P.(C) No. 16249 of 2018 2 learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Ext.P7 application has been preferred by the petitioner before the 1 st respondent and that it has been received. However, the learned counsel for the GCDA would submit that a copy of Ext.P7 has not been duly received by the 1st respondent.
4. In any view of the matter, I am of the opinion that the representation preferred by the petitioner before the 1 st respondent is liable to be considered first. Since it is only on receipt of a No objection certificate from the 1st respondent, that the petitioner can make an application before the 2 nd respondent.
In the above view of the matter, it is directed that in case the petitioner submits a copy of Ext.P7 application before the 1st respondent along with all relevant documents, the same shall be considered and orders passed by the 1 st respondent within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgement. The petitioner shall produce a copy of the judgment along with a copy of Ext.P7 representation before the 1st respondent for compliance. Thereafter, appropriate steps shall be taken by the petitioner to approach the 2nd respondent for permission as required in W.P.(C) No. 16249 of 2018 3 law. All contentions of the parties are left open.
The writ petition is ordered accordingly.
SD/-
ANU SIVARAMAN JUDGE rmm