Kerala High Court
District Collector vs Mohammed Bava on 31 May, 2014
Author: Babu Mathew P. Joseph
Bench: Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, Babu Mathew P.Joseph
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BABU MATHEW P.JOSEPH
FRIDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2014/4TH ASWINA, 1936
WA.No. 1290 of 2014 IN WP(C).26316/2013
--------------------------------------------------
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 26316/2013 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA
DATED 31-05-2014
-------
APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS 1, 2, 4 AND 5 IN WPC:
---------------------------------------------------------
1. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MALAPPURAM - 676 505.
2. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF FISHERIES, PONNANI,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.
3. TALUK SUPPLY OFFICER, TIRUR, MALAPPURAM DIST. - 676 101.
4. THE DIRECTOR OF FISHERIES, VIKAS BHAVAN,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.
BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.RAJESH VIJAYAN
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER AND 3RD RESPONDENT IN WPC:
--------------------------------------------------------------------
1. MOHAMMED BAVA, S/O SAIDALIKUTTY, THANGAL KUNHALIKKANAKATH,
OSSAN KADAPPURAM, TANUR POST - 676 302.
2. THE DISTRICT MANAGER, MATSYAFED, DISTRICT OFFICE, TIRUR,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT - 676 101.
R1 ADV. SRI. K.P. SUDHEER
R2 ADV. SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM, SC.
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
26-09-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN
&
BABU MATHEW P. JOSEPH, JJ.
------------------------------------------------
W. A. No.1290 of 2014 &
C. M. Application No.683 of 2014
------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 26th day of September, 2014
JUDGMENT
Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.
This appeal comes up with an application seeking condonation of delay. The appeal is by the District Collector, Malappuram and other official respondents in the writ petition whereby direction was sought by the writ petitioner for issuance of a permit to renew kerosene permit issued to fishing vessels. He claimed the permit under clause 8 of the Kerosene Control Order, 1968. The impugned judgment shows that any apprehension of the official respondents regarding the correctness of the necessary particulars and documents is a matter still in their hands because, a learned W. A. No.1290 of 2014 -2- single Judge has directed that the application of the petitioner shall be looked into by the fifth respondent who shall conduct an enquiry as per the procedure prescribed with the assistance of other officials and pass appropriate orders as directed by the learned single Judge. The writ petitioner was required to submit the application with necessary particulars and documents. Obviously therefore, when such an application with particulars and documents is furnished, the official respondents in the writ petition can do the needful in accordance with law. Efforts shall be done notwithstanding any action taken independently following the directions in W.P.(C) No.6837 of 2014 because, the learned single Judge noted that the case of the petitioner in the writ petition from which this appeal arises was not then considered. In such circumstances, we see no necessity to condone the delay in instituting the writ appeal or to entertain the writ appeal on merits. W. A. No.1290 of 2014 -3-
In the result, the C.M.Application and the writ appeal are dismissed in limine.
Sd/-
THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN JUDGE Sd/-
BABU MATHEW P. JOSEPH JUDGE kns/-
//TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE