Disposed

Manafudeen v. the Government of Kerala

Kerala HC3 Jun 2014WP(C)/9535/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The writ petitioner challenged the non-renewal of his metal crusher licence, alleging property attachment. The Court held that attachment is not a valid ground for refusal, found no other defects, and made the interim provisional renewal order absolute.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was disposed of by making the interim order granting provisional renewal of the licence absolute.

Manafudeen Vs the Government of Kerala — Mining and Natural Resources | Kerala HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF JUNE 2014/13TH JYAISHTA, 1936

¶5

WP(C).No. 9535 of 2012 (N)

¶6

PETITIONER :

¶7

MANAFUDEEN, AGED 49 YEARS, PROPRIETOR, AL-FATHIMA METAL CRUSHER UNIT, KARICHIRA, KONDODY, MANGODE P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.T.A.UNNIKRISHNAN

¶9

SRI.K.S.PRAVEEN

¶10

RESPONDENTS :

¶11

THE GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.

¶12

THE SENIOR GEOLOGIST, MINING AND GEOLOGY DEPARTMENT, DISTRICT OFFICE, KOLLAM - 691 001.

¶13

M.K.SALIM, S/O.MYTHEEN KANNU, HOUSE NO.KP XVIII/524, SAFA, KOTTAKKERAMCHERRY, PARIPPALLY VILLAGE, KALLUVATHUKKAL, KOLLAM, PIN-691 578.

¶14

R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.SHYSON.P.MANGUZHA R3 BY ADVS. SRI.V.S.CHANDRASEKHARAN

¶15

SRI.M.V.DAS SMT.PRINCY XAVIER SMT.LEKSHMI SWAMINATHAN

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03-06-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

Msd.

¶18

WP(C).No. 9535 of 2012 (N)

¶19

APPENDIX

¶20

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS:

¶21

--------------------------------------

¶22

EXHIBIT P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE LICENCE DATED 01.04.2011 VALID UPTO 31.03.2012 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶23

EXHIBIT P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE PANCHAYAT LICENCE DATED 30.04.2011. EXHIBIT P3 : TRUE COPY OF THE CONSENT GIVEN BY THE KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD DATED 20.07.2011 VALID UPTO 12.01.2014.

¶24

EXHIBIT P4 : TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 14.03.2012 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE VILLAGE OFFICER MANGODE. EXHIBIT P5 : TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 14.03.2012 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.

¶25

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:

NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.A.TO JUDGE.

Msd.

A.V. RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, J.

¶31

-------------------------------------------------W.P.(C) No. 9535 of 2012

¶32

Dated this the 3^rd day of June, 2014

¶33

J U D G M E N T

¶34

Alleging that the 2^nd respondent is not renewing the

¶35

metal crusher licence of the petitioner, he has approached this Court.

¶36

According to the petitioner, he was having dealer's licence to sell and stock granite metal/chips/rock powder etc. in his property, which was issued by the 2^nd respondent under Rule 48 of the Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1967. The period of licence expired on 31.03.2012. The petitioner alleges that though he submitted an application for renewal of licence, the 2^nd respondent is not renewing the same stating that the property is under attachment in a civil suit for money instituted by the 3^rd respondent. It is with this background, the petitioner has come up before this Court.

¶37

This Court, by interim order dated 20.04.2012,

¶38

..2..

¶39

W.P.(C) No. 9535 of 2012

¶40

ordered that the 2^nd respondent should provisionally renew Ext.P1 licence provided it does not suffer from any other defects, without holding the order of attachment as a ground for refusing the renewal.

¶41

Today, when the matter came up for hearing, it was submitted by the learned Government Pleader that the application for renewal of licence does not suffer from any other defects. The existence of an order of attachment is not a valid reason for refusing the renewal of licence.

¶42

In the light of the above submission, this Court is of the view that there is no harm in making the interim order absolute.

¶43

Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of making the interim order already granted absolute.

¶44

Sd/-

¶45

A.V. RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, JUDGE

¶46

bka/-

Manafudeen v. the Government of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manafudeen v. the Government of Kerala

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

Ajikumar.T. Vs Joint Regional Transport Officer

Kalvakulam Road Residents Welfare Association Vs State of Kerala

G.Sunilkumar Vs the State of Kerala and Others

Kunhikanaran Vs Edacherry Co-Operative Rural Housing Society Ltd.

Beeran Vs Ambalavayal Panchayat

Alex George Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kollamanad