Disposed

R.Prabhakaran Pillai v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC7 Jun 2018WP(C)/5284/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court directed petitioner to correct defective fertilizer renewal application and instructed authorities to process it within specific timelines. Petitioner allowed to operate under deemed license provisions if entitled during processing.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to visit respondent office for corrections; application to be forwarded within a week and processed within three weeks. Liberty to continue under deemed license if entitled.

R.Prabhakaran Pillai Vs the State of Kerala — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF JUNE 2018 / 17TH JYAISHTA, 1940

¶5

WP(C).No. 5284 of 2018

¶6

PETITIONER(S)

¶7

R.PRABHAKARAN PILLAI,

¶8

S/O. RAGHAVAN PILLAI, AGED 57 YEARS, USHUS, EDAKKAD P.O, PORUVAZHI VILLAGE, KUNNATHUR TALUK, KOLLAM, PIN-691 552.

¶9

BY ADV.SRI.T.T.RAKESH

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN- 695 001.

¶12

2. THE DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE, OFFICE OF THE DIRECTORATE OF AGRICULTURE , VIKAS BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 033.

¶13

3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE (E&T), PRINCIPAL AGRICULTURE OFFICE, KOLLAM, PIN-691 001.

¶14

4. THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, KRISHI BHAVAN, PORUVAZHY, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN-690 520.

¶15

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.K.B.SONY

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07-06-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

Msd.

¶18

08.06.2018

¶19

WP(C).No. 5284 of 2018 (I)

¶20

APPENDIX

¶21

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶22

EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE SAID ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF RECEIPT IN FORM A2 DATED 23/05/2012.
EXHIBIT P2 A TRUYE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF RECEIPT SHOWING RECEIPT OF PETITIONER'S APPLICATION FOR RENEWAL ISSUED BY TH 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 16/01/2014.
EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE CHALLAN FROM SUB TREASURY, SASTHAMKOTTA, INDICATING DEPOSIT OF RENEWAL FEE FOR FERTILIZER LICENSE.
EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF SOURCE IN FORM 'O' OF FACT DATED 27/12/2013.
EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF SOURCE IN FORM 'O' OF SWAL CORPORATION LIMITED DATED 28/12/2013.
EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT INDICATING DEPOSIT OF D&O TRADE LICENSE FEE FOR THE PERIOD 2013-2014 ISSUED BY THE PORUVAZHY GRAMA PANCHAYATH DATED 10/01/2014.
EXHIBIT P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE SAID DEPOSIT BY WAY OF CHALLAN FROM SUB TREASURY, SASTHAMKOTTA DATED 10/02/2015.
EXHIBIT P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE SAID CERTIFICATE OF SOURCE IN FORM 'O' OF FACT DATED 02/03/2016.
EXHIBIT P9 A TRUE COPY OF THE LATEST RECEIPT INDICATING DEPOSIT OF D&O TRADE LICENSE FEE FOR 2017-2018 ISSUED BY THE PORUVAZHY GRAMA PANCHAYATH DATED 25/04/2017.

¶23

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS :

NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.S.TO JUDGE

Msd.

08.06.2018

SHAJI P.CHALY, J.

¶30

========================

¶31

W.P.(C) No.5284 of 2018

¶32

======================== Dated this the 7^th day of June 2018

¶33

JUDGMENT

¶34

Petitioner is an ex-army personnel retired in the year 1999. From the year 2004 onwards he is an authorised retail dealer, carrying out the business of selling fertilisers under the licence granted by the 3^rd respondent, as per Clause 8(3) of the Fertiliser (Control) Order, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as Rule 1985). The grievance highlighted by the petitioner is that even though an application is filed by the petitioner within time, as is provided under Rule 1985, the same is not processed in accordance with law. It is also submitted that by virtue of the particular provisions contained under the Order, 1985, petitioner is entitled for a deemed licence. It is thus seeking appropriate directions, this writ petition is filed.

¶35

Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader and perused the pleadings and documents on record.

¶36

W.P.(C) No.5284 of 2018

¶37

¶38

Learned Counsel for the petitioner reiterated the contentions raised in the writ petition. Learned Government Pleader pointed out that, even though an application was received in the office of the 3^rd respondent, the same was defective and consequently, the same was returned to the 4^th respondent, i.e, Agricultural Officer, Krishi Bhavan, Poruvazhi, Kollam District.

¶39

The submission made by the learned Government Pleader is that there are no pending proceedings before the 3^rd respondent and therefore, direction sought for by the petitioner in this writ petition cannot be justified.

¶40

Having evaluated the situation and hearing the arguments across the bar, I am of the considered opinion that the writ petition can be disposed of by issuing suitable directions. Petitioner is directed to carry out necessary corrections by visiting the office of the 4^th respondent. If the correction is carried by the petitioner, in accordance with the directions above, the application shall be forwarded by the 4^th respondent immediately to the 3^rd respondent and at any rate within a week thereafter, which shall be processed by the 3^rd respondent within a period of three weeks from the date of

¶41

W.P.(C) No.5284 of 2018

¶42

¶43

receipt of the application. Till such time, as is submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, if petitioner is entitled to continue the licence in accordance with the deemed licence provisions, contained under the order 1985, petitioner will be at liberty to do so.

¶44

The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶45

Sd/

¶46

SHAJI P.CHALY JUDGE

¶47

jm/

¶48

\ true copy \

¶49

PA to Judge

R.Prabhakaran Pillai v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.Prabhakaran Pillai v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Induchudan G. Vs a.Purushothaman

Eldose K.G Vs Smt. a Shinamol I.A.S

P.a.Babu Vs S.a.Sajna

Mathew Paul Vs Kerala Water Authority

Pazhakulam Sivadasan Vs P.Venugopal

Koyakutty P.P Vs Assistant Executive Engineer