Disposed

Biju Zachariah, v. Jobu Joseph Babu

Kerala HC3 Jul 2019WP(C)/14239/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court directed the Grama Panchayath Secretary to consider the pending renewal application of the trade licence and give appropriate notice to parties, leaving the merits for the Secretary to decide after hearing. Petition disposed of without substantive adjudication on merits pending production before the licensing authority.

What did the court decide?

Directed 3rd respondent to consider pending renewal application, notice petitioner and 1st respondent, and decide within one week.

Biju Zachariah, Vs Jobu Joseph Babu — Public Procurement and Tenders | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 03RD DAY OF JULY 2019 / 12TH ASHADHA, 1941

¶5

WP(C).No.14239 of 2019

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

BIJU ZACHARIAH, AGED 49 YEARS,S/O.K.A.SCARIA, KANNUKUZHIYIL HOUSE, KOTHALA.P.O., PAMPADY, KOTTAYAM, PIN-686502.

¶8

BY ADVS.

¶9

SRI.M.P.MADHAVANKUTTY SRI.NAVEEN RADHAKRISHNAN

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

1 JOBU JOSEPH BABU, S/O.BABU JOSEPH, PULLOLICKAL HOUSE, KOTHALA.P.O., KOTTAYAM, PROPRIETOR J.B.INDUSTRIES, KOTHALA, PIN-686502.

¶12

2 KOOROPPADA GRAMA PANCHAYATH REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT,PIN- 686502.

¶13

3 THE SECRETARY, KOOROPPADA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN-686502.

¶14

4 THE ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER, KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, KOTTAYAM, PIN-686001.

¶15

5 DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER, KOTTAYAM, PIN-686001.

¶16

6 SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PAMPADY, KOTTAYM, PIN-686502.

¶17

WP(C).No.14239 of 2019

¶18

-2-

¶19

7 DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF, KOTTAYAM, PIN-686001.

¶20

BY ADVS. SRI.GIKKU JACOB SRI.C.N.SREEKUMAR SMT.G.ASHWINI SMT.MANJU PAUL SRI.ANIL PRASAD SRI.SABU P.JOSEPH SRI.T.NAVEEN,STANDING COUNSEL, KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

¶21

SRI.MANURAJ.K.J.,GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03.07.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

WP(C).No.14239 of 2019

¶24

-3-

¶25

JUDGMENT

¶26

The petitioner, who is a resident at Kothala in

¶27

Pampady, within the area of the 2^nd respondent Grama Panchayath, has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the 2^nd respondent to implement the stop memo issued against the 1^st respondent; and a writ of mandamus commanding respondents 2 to 7 to take necessary action against the 1^st respondent, who is running hollow brick manufacturing unit in violation of the directions issued by respondents 2 to 4 as well as the stop memo issued by the local authority. The further relief sought for is a writ of mandamus commanding respondents 6 and 7 to take necessary action for stopping the functioning of the hollow brick manufacturing unit by the 1^st respondent.

¶28

On 23.05.2019, when this writ petition came up

¶29

for admission, urgent notice on admission by special messenger was ordered to respondents 1 to 3, returnable by 30.05.2019. The learned Standing Counsel for Pollution Control Board took notice on admission for the 4^th

¶30

WP(C).No.14239 of 2019

¶31

-4-

¶32

respondent. The learned Government Pleader took notice on admission for respondents 5 to 7. The learned Standing Counsel for Pollution Control Board was directed to get instructions.

¶33

On 30.05.2019, when this writ petition came up for consideration, the learned counsel for the 1^st respondent and also the learned Standing Counsel for respondents 2 and 3 sought time to file counter affidavit.

¶34

On 12.06.2019, when this writ petition came up

¶35

for consideration, this Court passed the following order;

¶36

“The learned Standing Counsel for Kooroppada Grama Panchayat, representing respondents 2 and 3, would submit that on 10.05.2019, the 3^rd respondent Secretary has issued a notice, whereby the 1^st respondent has been directed to close down the hollow brick manufacturing unit, under the name J.B. Industries, which is being run without obtaining necessary licence.

¶37

The learned counsel for the 1^st respondent would submit that, the said respondent is in receipt of such a notice issued by the 3^rd respondent. The learned counsel would point out that the application made by the 1^st respondent for licence is still pending consideration.

¶38

WP(C).No.14239 of 2019

¶39

-5-

¶40

List this writ petition on 18.06.2019 for filing counter affidavit by the 1^st respondent and statement on behalf of respondents 2 and 3.

¶41

In the meantime, the 1^st respondent shall not run the unit in question and the 3^rd respondent shall take necessary steps to ensure strict compliance of this order.”

¶42

A counter affidavit has been filed by the 1^st respondent, opposing the reliefs sought for in this writ petition. Respondents 2 and 3 have also filed a counter affidavit. The petitioner has filed a reply affidavit to the counter affidavit filed by the 1^st respondent.

¶43

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel for the 1^st respondent; the learned Standing Counsel for the 2^nd respondent Grama Panchayat, representing respondents 2 and 3; the learned Standing Counsel for Pollution Control Board, representing the 4^th respondent Environmental Engineer; and also the learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents 5 to 7.

¶44

The pleadings and materials on record would show that the trade licence granted to the 1^st respondent for conducting hollow brick manufacturing unit had already

¶45

WP(C).No.14239 of 2019

¶46

-6-

¶47

expired on 31.03.2019. The application made by the 1^st respondent, as evidenced by Ext.R1(f) receipt dated 15.05.2019, for renewal of trade licence is pending consideration before the 3^rd respondent Secretary of the Grama Panchayat.

¶48

The averments in the counter affidavit filed by respondents 2 and 3 would indicate that the 1^st respondent has already complied with the directions issued by the 4^th respondent Environmental Engineer of Pollution Control Board and the consent to operate has also been renewed upto 30.06.2023, as evidenced by Ext.R1(j). The stand taken by respondents 2 and 3 in their counter affidavit is that the trade licence of the 1^st respondent for conducting hollow brick manufacturing unit can be renewed.

¶49

The submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that, since the trade licence issued to the 1^st respondent had already expired on 31.03.2019, the application stated to have been made on 15.05.2019, as evidenced by Ext.R1(f) receipt, is not an application for renewal made during the validity of the trade licence.

¶50

WP(C).No.14239 of 2019

¶51

-7-

¶52

Per contra, the learned counsel for the 1^st

¶53

respondent, after referring to Rules 17 to 19 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj (Issue of Licence to Dangerous and Offensive Trades and Factories) Rules would contend that an application for renewal of trade licence can be entertained by the 3^rd respondent even after the expiry of the licence.

¶54

This Court need not go into this contention in this writ petition, since the 1^st respondent is not running the unit in question, in view of the interim order granted by this Court, and the validity of the trade licence had already expired on 31.03.2019. Now the application made by the petitioner on 15.05.2019, as evidenced by Ext.R1(f), is pending consideration before the 3^rd respondent. Therefore, it is for the 3^rd respondent to consider that application and

¶55

pass appropriate orders thereon, after affording the petitioner and also the 1^st respondent an opportunity of being heard.

¶56

In such circumstances, without expressing anything on the merits of the rival contentions, this writ petition is disposed of by directing the 3^rd respondent to

¶57

WP(C).No.14239 of 2019

¶58

-8-

¶59

consider the application made by the 1^st respondent, as evidenced by Ext.R1(f) receipt dated 15.05.2019 and take

¶60

an appropriate decision, with notice to the petitioner and also to the 1^st respondent.

¶61

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned counsel for the 1^st respondent that both parties shall appear before the 3^rd respondent on 10.07.2019 at 11.00 am.

¶62

A decision in this regard shall be taken, strictly in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of one week from the date of hearing, taking note of the legal and factual contentions raised by the learned counsel on both sides.

¶63

It would be open to the petitioner and also to the 1^st respondent to submit written submission before the 3^rd respondent Secretary of the Grama Panchayath.

¶64

Sd/-

¶65

ANIL K. NARENDRAN JUDGE

¶66

bpr

¶67

WP(C).No.14239 of 2019

¶68

-9-

¶69

APPENDIX

¶70

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶71

EXHIBIT P1	TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION FROM THE KOOROPPADA GRAMA PANCHAYAT DATED 15.09.2018 BEARING NO.A7-5286/18.
EXHIBIT P2	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE KOOROPPADA GRAMA PANCHAYAT DATED 10.10.2018 BEARING NO.A7-5718/18.
EXHIBIT P3	TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY RECEIVED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER R.T.I ACT DATED 30.1.2019 BEARING NO.PCB/KTM/ E-191/06/RTI-136/2018.
EXHIBIT P4	TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 09.05.2019 BEFORE RESPONDENTS 2 TO 5.

¶72

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:

¶73

EXHIBIT R1(A)	TRUE COPY OF THE CONSENT TO ESTABLISH CERTIFICATE DATED 24/05/2016 WITH CONSENT NO.PCB/KTM/ICE/995/2016.
EXHIBIT R1(B)	TRUE COPY OF THE CONSENT TO OPERATE DATED 30/07/2016 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT R1(C)	TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 15/03/2019 SHOWING PAYMENT OF RENEWAL FEES FOR EXHIBIT R1(B).
EXHIBIT R1(D)	TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 12/09/2018 FOR REMITTING THE RENEWAL LICENCE FEES.
EXHIBIT R1(E)	TRUE COPY OF THE RENEWED LICENCE DATED 17/09/2018 ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY, KOOROPPADA GRAMA PANCHAYATH TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT R1(F)	TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 15/05/2019 SHOWING PAYMENT OF LICENCE FEE.

¶74

WP(C).No.14239 of 2019

¶75

-10-

¶76

EXHIBIT R1(G) TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 08/10/2015 ISSUED BY THE ASSISTANT DIVISIONAL OFFICER, FIRE AND RESCUE. EXHIBIT R1(H) TRUE COPY OF THE LEASE DEED DATED 16/10/2018 EXECUTED BETWEEN DEEPAK GEORGE AND BABU JOSEPH. EXHIBIT R1(I) PHOTOGRAPH OF THE HOLLOW BRICK MANUFACTURING UNIT. EXHIBIT R1(J) TRUE COPY OF THE FRESH CONSENT TO OPERATE DATED 27/06/2019 ISSUED BY 4TH RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT R2(A) TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE NO.A7.2250/19 DATED 10/05/2019 ISSUED TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT R2(B) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO. PCB/KTM/CO/3973/16 DATED 18/06/2019 FROM THE ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER OF THE KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD. EXHIBIT R2(C) TRUE COPY OF THE INSPECTION REPORT OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 21/06/2019.

Biju Zachariah, v. Jobu Joseph Babu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Biju Zachariah, v. Jobu Joseph Babu

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

Babu P.U. Vs Abraham

P.Manikantan Vs the Arayancode Grama Panchayath

Jessy Vs Lourdu Swami @ Mani

Geetha K, Vs State of Kerala

M.K.Malik Vs State of Kerala

Rajeev.M.K. Vs the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation