Kerala High Court
Koottikkal Grama Panchayath vs Vazhathara Granites And Aggregates ... on 21 May, 2018
Author: C.K.Abdul Rehim
Bench: C.K.Abdul Rehim
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR.HRISHIKESH ROY
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM
THURSDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF JUNE 2018 / 31ST JYAISHTA, 1940
WA.No. 1175 of 2018 IN WPC. 13841/2018
--------------------------------------------------------
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 13841/2018 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA
DATED 21-05-2018
APPELLANT(S)/RESPONDENTS IN THE WRIT PETITION:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 KOOTTIKKAL GRAMA PANCHAYATH
KOOTTIKKAL PO, KOTTAYAM-686514,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
2 SECRETARY,
KOOTTIKKAL GRAMA PANCHAYATH
KOOTTIKKAL PO, KOTTAYAM-686514.
BY ADVS.SRI.GEORGEKUTTY MATHEW
SRI.JOHNSON MATHEW
RESPONDENT(S)/PETITIONER IN THE WRIT PETITION:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
VAZHATHARA GRANITES AND AGGREGATES PVT. LTD.
VAZHATHARA BUILDING, PUTHUPPALLY, KOOTTIKKAL PO,
KOTTAYAM-686 514, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR,
V.C JOSEPH.
R BY SRI.RONY JOSE
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21-06-2018,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
sou.
Hrishikesh Roy, Ag. CJ
&
C.K. Abdul Rehim, J
-------------------------------------------------
W.A. No. 1175 of 2018
-------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 21st day of June, 2018
JUDGMENT
Hrishikesh Roy, Ag. CJ The respondents 1 and 2 in the writ proceedings are the appellants before us and challenge is against the judgment dated 21.3.2018 in W.P(C). No.13841 of 2018. The respondent/writ petitioner approached the court to challenge the Ext.P7, whereby a stop memo was issued to the quarry operator on the ground that his application for renewal for licence for the year 2018-19, was rejected by the Committee.
2. The learned Judge noted that the lease in question is in operation since 9.10.2008 and the renewal application was filed by the operator on 27.2.2018 (Ext.P3). The application was required to be considered and a decision thereon was to be communicated within 30 days, under the provisions of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 and it was stipulated in sub-section (3) of Section 236 thereof that if the authorities fail to communicate their decision to the applicant within 30 days, the application shall be deemed to be allowed, for the relevant period.
3 It can be seen from the Ext.P5 that the Panchayat Secretary issued the communication on 28.3.2018, where the negative decision of the Panchayat W.A.1175/18 2 Committee, stated to have been taken on 28.3.2018, has been referred to. But this communication was admittedly posted only on 31.3.2018. As the decision was not communicated within the stipulated 30 days, the learned Judge observed that the applicant should be treated to have obtained deemed licence, in terms of Section 236(3) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act for the period from 1.4.2018 to 31.3.2019. Accordingly, consequential direction was issued to the Panchayat authorities to issue certificate of securing the deemed licence. It was, however, made clear by the court that the judgment will not stand in the way of the respondent Panchayat from initiating any action for cancellation of the licence, in the event of contravention of any licence condition, by the quarry operator.
4. Assailing the decision of the learned Single Judge, Sri. Georgekutty Mathew, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the application for renewal was received on 27.2.2018 and considering that it was the shortened month of February, the 30 days time limit will expire only on 31.3.2018. The counsel points out that since the 28.3.2018 communication was posted for despatch on 31.3.2018, the deemed licence provision cannot come into play, in the present matter.
5. On the other hand, the learned Senior Counsel Sri. Bechu Kurian Thomas, on behalf of the respondent/writ petitioner refers to the decision in S udhakaran v. Pallichal Grama Panchayat reported in 2016 (2) KLT 175 to point out that the 30 days time period mentioned in Section 236 (3) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act will require communication of the decision to the applicant and mere posting the communication, will not suffice.
6. We have considered the rival submissions and feel that there has been no communication of the Panchayat, within the mandatory 30 days period and W.A.1175/18 3 therefore, we see no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment in W.P(C). No.13841 of 2018. Thus, the appeal stands dismissed without any order on cost.
Sd/-
Hrishikesh Roy, Acting Chief Justice Sd/-
C.K. Abdul Rehim, Judge sou.