Partly allowed

Aneesh.C.R. v. the Ponnani Municipality

Kerala HC11 Jan 2012WP(C)/864/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala disposed of a writ petition challenging a restriction on transporting sand from Ponnani Port outside Malappuram District. Relying on a prior judgment on the same question, the court directed respondents to issue permits for transportation outside the district if desired by the petitioner.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondents to issue passes permitting transportation of materials outside Malappuram district if petitioner so desires.

Aneesh.C.R. Vs the Ponnani Municipality — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF JANUARY 2012/21ST POUSHA 1933

¶5

WPC.No. 864 of 2012 (G) =======================

¶6

PETITIONER(S) =============

¶7

ANEESH.C.R.

¶8

CHULLIPARAMBIL HOUSE, ENGANDIYOOR.P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT (REGISTERED OWNER OF VEHICLE NO. KL 08 D 1166)

¶9

BY ADV.SRI.K.I.SAGEER IBRAHIM

¶10

RESPONDENT(S) ==============

¶11

1. THE PONNANI MUNICIPALITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,

¶12

PONNANI,MALAPPURAM DISTRICT - 679 577.

¶13

2. THE PORT CONSERVATOR,

¶14

OFFICE OF PORT CONSERVATOR, PORT AND SHIIPPING, PONNANI HARBOR, PONNANI.P.O.,MALAPPURAM DISTRICT - 679 577.

¶15

3. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, THIIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶16

R1 BY ADV. SRI.C.M.MOHAMMED IQUABAL,SC,PONNANI MUNICIPALITY R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. M.J.RAJASREE

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11-01-2012 , THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

Kss

¶19

WPC.NO.864/2012 G

¶20

APPENDIX

¶21

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶22

P1:	COPY OF THE PORT SAND PERMIT ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT
	DTD.22/11/2011.
P2:	COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) NO.25187/11 DTD. 23/09/2011.

¶23

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: N I L

/TRUE COPY/

P.A.TO JUDGE

Kss

S. Siri Jagan, J.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

¶29

W.P(C) No. 864 of 2012

¶30

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 11^th day of January, 2012.

¶31

In this writ petition, the petitioner is the owner of goods carriage trucks. He is aggrieved by restriction imposed by the respondents in the matter of transportation of construction materials, whereby the petitioner has been prohibited from transporting such materials outside Malappuram District.

¶32

I have heard the parties.

¶33

On the very same question, this Court has passed a judgment dated 20.9.2011 in W.P.(C).Nos.23810 & 23818 of 2011, which reads as follows:

¶34

“Main prayer sought in these writ petitions reads as follows:-

¶35

“Issue a writ of mandamus directing respondents 1 and 2 to delete the condition imposed in the port sand pass/ permit restricting the transportation of the port sand only in Malappuram district (“valid only Malappuram district”) and direct them to issue permit to the areas outside Malappuram District.”

¶36

Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the second respondent Municipality submits that, in the writ petition resulting in Ext.P7 judgment, there was a direction issued by this Court to the effect that the sand from the Ponnani Port should be transported only within the Malappuram District and that it was therefore that such a condition was insisted. It is stated that when the writ petition was disposed of by Ext.P7 judgment, such a condition has not been retained. On this ground, the Municipality submits that it is now free to issue passes enabling transportation of the sand from the Ponnani Port to places outside Malappuram District.

¶37

Now that such a submission has been made on behalf of the second respondent, which is the authority to issue the transportation passes, it is not necessary for this Court to examine the contentions raised by the petitioners on merits.

¶38

W.P(C) No. 864 of 2012 -: 2 :-

¶39

In that view of the matter, these writ petitions are disposed of leaving it open to the second respondent to issue passes permitting transportation of the sand in question to places outside Malappuram District.”

¶40

I am in full agreement with that decision. Therefore, following that decision, this writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to issue passes permitting transportation of materials in question outside Malappuram district also, if the petitioner so desires.

¶41

S. Siri Jagan, Judge.

¶42

Tds/

Aneesh.C.R. v. the Ponnani Municipality

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aneesh.C.R. v. the Ponnani Municipality

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S.Joseph Michael & Brothers and Anr. Vs K.B.Valsalakumari

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs Banerji Memorial Club

Augusty Joseph & Ors. Vs State of Kerala & Ors.

B. Anoopkumar Vs the District Collector, Alappuzha

Santhakumari Vs Sho,Kannur & Another

Kunjiraman Kumaran Vs District Collector, Alappuzha