Allowed

Lembi Devassy v. the Secretaryt, Gcda, Ernakulam

Kerala HC27 Aug 2009WP(C)/22194/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenges the rejection of a license application for a mobile Elaneer vending unit by the GCDA Secretary without assigning any reasons. The Court held that the authority cannot reject an application for inherent danger when conditions can be imposed. The resolution setting aside was quashed, and the petition disposed of mandating a fresh decision.

What did the court decide?

The impugned rejection order (Ext.P6) and the impugned resolution of the Executive Committee were set aside. The respondents were directed to take a fresh decision within six weeks.

Lembi Devassy Vs the Secretaryt, Gcda… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 27TH AUGUST 2009 / 5TH BHADRA 1931

¶5

WP(C).No. 22194 of 2009(T) --------------------------

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

¶8

LEMBI DEVASSY ,S/O.DEVASSY AGED 37 YEARS, RESIDING AT CHANAYIL VEEDU KODUVALLY, KAITHARAM.PO, NORTH PARAVUR ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.S.R.SREEJITH

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

¶12

THE SECRETARY ,G.C.D.A ERNAKULAM , P.B.NO.2012 KADAVANTHARA, KOCHI 20.

¶13

THE CORPORATION OF KOCHI REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY

¶14

THE HEALTH OFFICER, CORPORATION OF KOCHI P.B.NO.1016,ERNAKULAM, KOCHI 11

¶15

THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF AGRCULTURE (AUDIT) OFFICE OF PRINCIPAL AGRICULTURAL OFFICE KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM.

¶16

ADV. SRI.M.K.THANKAPPAN,SC,GCDA,FOR R1 SMT.M.K.PUSHPALATHA,SC,COCHIN CORPORATI FOR R2

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

V.GIRI,J.

¶19

W.P ( C) No.22194 of 2009

¶20

-------------------------Dated this the 27^th August,2009

¶21

J U D G M E N T

¶22

Petitioner claims to be the beneficiary under a scheme called 'Mission for Kerala's Development and Poverty Alleviation (vision 2010) Scheme on value addition and post harvest Management” . Under the said Scheme, he claims to have been allotted with a Elaneer Parlour Unit and he availed a loan of Rs.50,000/- from the State Bank of India. He made an application before the 1^st respondent seeking a license to conduct a Tender Coconut Parlour Unit. He was then told that by Ext.P1 that he will have to obtain a No Objection Certificate from the 3^rd respondent, the Health Officer, Corporation of Kochi. Petitioner then approached the 2^nd respondent, Secretary of the Corporation who directed the petitioner to obtain a certificate from the concerned bank stating that the Bank has disbursed the amount and certificate from the 4^th respondent Deputy Director of Agriculture, stating that he is a member of Special Employment Generation

¶23

W.P ( C) No.22194 of 2009

¶24

¶25

Programme for one lakh youth. He was also asked to give an undertaking to the effect that the petitioner shall dispose of the waste arising from the running of coconut Parlour unit and shall comply with the guidelines framed by the 2^nd respondent Corporation.

¶26

Exts.P2 and P3 evidences that such certificates have been obtained. Ext.P4 is an undertaking given by the petitioner. The 3^rd respondent then issued NOC as evidenced by Ext.P5. But the 1st respondent, in spite of all these, rejected the petitioner’s application for license as evidenced by Ext.P6, which has been challenged in the writ petition.

¶27

A counter affidavit has been filed by the 1^st respondent. Reference is made to Ext. R1(c) resolution of the Executive Committee.

¶28

Heard counsel on both sides. First respondent has not given any reason for rejecting the petitioner’s application for license. It is now agreed that is permission sought to conduct a mobile Elaneer vending unit, to be normally stationed before the International Stadium at

¶29

W.P ( C) No.22194 of 2009

¶30

¶31

Kaloor. It cannot be said that the proposal contains any inherent danger or other factor which would be detrimental to public interest. Conditions can also be imposed by the licensing authority in the matter of vending. That is different from rejecting the application, without any reasons, whatsoever.

¶32

5. Ext.P6 shall therefore stand set aside. The resolution taken by the Executive Committee of the GCDA as evidenced by E. R1 (c) shall also therefore be rendered ineffected. Respondents shall take a fresh decision on the petitioner’s application in the light of the observations contained in this judgment within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶33

Writ petition is disposed of as above.

¶34

(V.GIRI,JUDGE)

¶35

¶36

W.P ( C) No.22194 of 2009

¶37

¶38

W.P ( C) No.22194 of 2009

¶39

Lembi Devassy v. the Secretaryt, Gcda, Ernakulam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lembi Devassy v. the Secretaryt, Gcda, Ernakulam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Divisional Forest Officer & Others Vs K.J.John

E.K. Sathi Vs District Collector, Malappuram and Anr.

A.P.Mohammed @ Manu Vs C.I.of Police,Ponnani and Others

Vasu Vs Revenue Divisional Officer

Rajamma Vs Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal

Jobin Joseph Vs Deputy Ranger Forest Station Kanchiyar