Disposed

A.Murali v. Union of India

Kerala HC17 Dec 2019WA/2137/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In W.A. No. 2137 of 2018, the High Court of Kerala disposed of an appeal challenging a writ petition regarding auctioneer licenses. The Court directed the seventh respondent's application to be considered by the Spices Board within one month.

What did the court decide?

The application of the 7th respondent is to be considered by the Spices Board within one month from the date of receipt of the judgment.

A.Murali Vs Union of India — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE

¶6

TUESDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2019 / 26TH AGRAHAYANA, 1941

¶7

W.A.No.2137 OF 2018

¶8

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 26740/2018(N) OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 16.10.2018

¶9

APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS:

¶10

1 A.MURALI, AGED 47 YEARS, S/O ANDAVAR.K, 419, SURULI ROAD, SURULIPATTI, THENI DISTRICT, TAMIL NADU.

¶11

2 ABRAHAM, AGED 62 YEARS, S/O.CHERIAN, THAGADIPURATHU HOUSE, VALLARAMKUNNU P.O., PATHUMURI, KUMULI VIA, PEERMEDU TALUK, IDUKKI DISTRICT.

¶12

3 G.BIBINNATH, AGED 47 YEARS, S/O.C.N.GOPINATH, MADHUBHAVAN, PATHUMURI, VELLARAMKUNNU P.O., PIN - 685 535.

¶13

4 CHERIAN.T.J., AGED 62 YEARS, S/O.JOSEPH, THAGADIPURATHU HOUSE, VALLARKUNNU P.O., PATHUMURI, KUMULI VIA, PEERMEDU TALUK, IDUKKI DISTRICT.

¶14

5 C.MAHANDRAN, AGED 46 YEARS, S/O.CHINAYA GOWNDER, 24/15W, KRISHNASAMY STREET, MELAGADALOOR, THENI DISTRICT, TAMIL NADU.

¶15

6 S.THANGARAJ, AGED 68 YEARS S/O.SIKKAYA GOWNDER, 4/14W, WATER TANK STREET, MELAGADALOOR, THENI DISTRICT, TAMIL NADU.

¶16

BY ADVS. SRI.SANTHOSH MATHEW SRI.ARUN THOMAS SRI.JENNIS STEPHEN SRI.VIJAY V. PAUL SMT.KARTHIKA MARIA SMT.MARIA ROY SMT.VEENA RAVEENDRAN SRI.ANIL SEBASTIAN PULICKEL

¶17

W.A.No.2137 OF 2018

¶18

: 2 :

¶19

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

¶20

1 UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY, NEW DELHI - 110 001.

¶21

2 SPICES BOARD, SUGANDHA BHAVAN, N.H. BY-PASS, P.B.NO.2277, PALARIVATTOM P.O., COCHIN - 682 025, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶22

3 THE CHAIRMAN, SPICES BOARD, SUGANDHA BHAVAN, N.H.BY-PASS, P.B.NO.2277, PALARIVATTOM P.O., COCHIN - 682 025.

¶23

4 SECRETARY, SPICES BOARD, SUGANDHA BHAVAN, N.H BY-PASS, P.B.NO.2277, PALARIVATTOM P.O., COCHIN- 682 025.

¶24

5 M/S.SPICE MORE TRADING COMPANY KP XIV-11 VETTATHARA BUILDING, MUNNAR ROAD, KUMILY - 685 509, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.

¶25

6 M/S.THE STATE TRADING CORPORATION OF INDIA LIMITED K.S.H.B.OFFICE COMPLEX 4TH FLOOR, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, KOCHI - 682 036, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.

¶26

7 M/S.GREEN CARDAMOM TRADING COMPANY 32-W/45-1, RAILWAY STATION ROAD, BODINAYAKANUR, THENI (DISTRICT), TAMILNADU - 625 513. REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.

¶27

R1 BY SMT.C.G.PREETHA, CGC R2-4 BY SMT.K.RADHAMANI AMMA, SC, SPICES BOARD R2-4 BY SRI.ANTONY MUKKATH, SC, SPICES BOARD R5 BY ADV. SRI.LIJI.J.VADAKEDOM R7 BY ADV. SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN R7 BY ADV. SMT.PREETHI RAMAKRISHNAN (P-212) R7 BY ADV. SRI.T.C.KRISHNA R7 BY ADV. SRI.C.ANIL KUMAR R7 BY ADV. SMT.ASHA K.SHENOY R7 BY ADV. SRI.PRATAP ABRAHAM VARGHESE SRI.ANTONY MUKKATH, SC FOR R2-R4

¶28

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17.12.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

W.A.No.2137 OF 2018

: 3 :

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 17th day of December 2019

¶33

Shaffique, J.

¶34

This appeal is filed by the petitioners in W.P.(C)No.26740 of 2018 challenging the judgment dated 16.10.2018. Petitioners claiming to be cardamom planters have sought for a declaration that the Secretary of the Spices Board does not have authority to grant new Auctioneer License in the absence of the Spices Board. Learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition observing that the appellants cannot have any grievance against the grant of Auctioneer License. It was observed that the Secretary has certain emergency power to issue orders and to seek ratification from the Board, if the situation so warrants.

¶35

In the writ appeal, this court had granted the interim stay for considering the application submitted by the contesting respondent/the 7^th respondent. It is submitted by the counsel for the 7^th respondent that an application has already been submitted before the Spices Board and what remains is only issuance of license.

¶36

W.A.No.2137 OF 2018

¶37

: 4 :

¶38

In view of the above, the application submitted by the 7^th respondent

¶39

shall be considered by the Spices Board in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶40

Writ appeal is disposed of with the above direction.

¶41

sd/- S.MANIKUMAR CHIEF JUSTICE

¶42

sd/- A.M.SHAFFIQUE JUDGE

A.M.SHAFFIQUE

jes

W.A.No.2137 OF 2018

: 5 :

APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶49

ANNEXURE 1 TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 30/7/2018 IN W.P.(C) NO.23925/2018. ANNEXURE 2 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C) NO.23925/2018. ANNEXURE 3 TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION TAKEN BY THE SPICES BOARD ON 13.12.2018. ANNEXURE 4 TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE SPICES BOARD IN W.P(MD)24705/2018.

¶50

// TRUE COPY //

¶51

P.S. TO JUDGE

A.Murali v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.Murali v. Union of India

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

M.K.Devadas, Vs Ajayakumar K.P.

C.V. Varghese, Vs the Executive Engineer

Ranjan M. Vs K.Sarojini Amma

Thomas Chacko, Vs Bank of India

Cochin Port Trust Vs Sea Consortium Pvt. Ltd.

Sunil Vs Attingal Municipality