Partly allowed

V v. Sasi v the Geologist

Kerala HC9 Feb 2023WP(C)/1442/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala issued directions to the Geologist District Office to consider the petitioner's application for crusher unit renewal without waiting for orders on removal of the property from the revenue data bank. The court relied on a prior judgment regarding similar circumstances of long-standing licensed operation.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the 1st respondent to consider the renewal application within one month and take a decision, with a direction to the petitioner to produce Form 5 and 6 orders as issued.

V v Sasi Vs the Geologist — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 9^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2023 / 20TH MAGHA, 1944

¶5

WP(C) NO.1442 OF 2023

¶6

PETITIONER :-

¶7

V V SASI, VELLAIKUDAM HOUSE, VELLARAPPAALLY, SOUTH VELLARAPLLY P.O, PIN – 683 580

¶8

BY ADV PHILIP J.VETTICKATTU

¶9

RESPONDENTS :-

¶10

1 THE GEOLOGIST DISTRICT OFFICE, MINING AND GEOLOGY, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD, KOCHI, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN – 682 030

¶11

2 REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER FORT KOCHI, K.B JACOB ROAD, ERNAKULAM, PIN – 682 001

¶12

SMT.PARVATHY.K, GP

¶13

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09.02.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

WP(C) NO.1442 OF 2023

¶15

-: 2 :-

¶16

JUDGMENT

¶17

Dated this the 9th day of February, 2023

¶18

This writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs :-

¶19

“(i) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction directing the 1^st respondent to finalize the application for renewal of registration (Ext.P3) without insisting for the production of any NOC from the RDO.

¶20

(ii) Issue a writ of mandamus, or any other writ, order or direction directing the 2^nd respondent to dispose of Ext.P8 application forthwith, by providing an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner.”

¶21

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the

¶22

learned Government Pleader.

¶23

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has been conducting a crusher unit with licenses from the year 1992 onwards. However, when an application was submitted for renewal of registration, Ext.P4 proceedings were issued on 7.1.2023 stating that the property stands recorded as 'nilam' in the tax receipt and that the orders for removing the property from the data bank as also for taking appropriate steps to obtain permission for use of the property for other purposes have to be obtained under the provisions of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008.

¶24

WP(C) NO.1442 OF 2023

¶25

-: 3 :-

¶26

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the licence was operational all along, the said contentions cannot stand in the way of the consideration of the application for renewal of registration. Ext.P9 judgment is also relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner and it is contended that similar directions may be issued in this case as well.

¶27

The learned Government Pleader submits that the property is admittedly shown as 'nilam' in the revenue records and that it also stands included in the data bank as converted land. It is, therefore, contended that since the petitioner has now submitted Ext.P8 application under Form 5, it is only after removal of the property from the data bank that the application for renewal of registration can be considered.

¶28

Having considered the contentions advanced on either side and in view of the specific contention raised by the petitioner that the crusher unit is functioning since 1992 with due permissions and licenses and since the dealer's licence issued in the year 1992 has been renewed even after the inclusion of the property in the data bank, the contention that the application for renewal of registration has to await the orders to be passed on the Form 5 application submitted by the petitioner cannot be accepted. This is more so, in view of the fact that the property stands included in the

¶29

WP(C) NO.1442 OF 2023

¶30

-: 4 :-

¶31

data bank with the specific remark that it is converted approximately in the year 2000. In the above view of the matter, I am of the opinion that the directions issued in Ext.P9 judgment are liable to be followed in this case as well.

¶32

There will, accordingly, be a direction to the 1^st respondent to consider the application for renewal of registration without awaiting for orders to be passed on the Form 5 application. A decision shall be taken on the petitioner's application for renewal of registration within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The petitioner shall produce the orders passed on Form 5 and Form 6 applications before the 1^st respondent as and when they are issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer.

¶33

Sd/ANU SIVARAMAN JUDGE

¶34

Jvt/16.2.2023

¶35

WP(C) NO.1442 OF 2023

¶36

-: 5 :-

¶37

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 1442/2023

¶38

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶39

Exhibit p1 TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE DATED 09.01.2017 ISSUED BY THE 1"T RESPONDENT U Exhibit p2 TRUE COPY OF THE DEALER'S LICENSE DATED 18.03.2020 WHICH WAS VALID TILL 17.O3.2021 ISSUED BY THE 1"T RESPONDENT Exhibit p3 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE OLQHEJ ZEHLZ"Z' APPLICATIONR. SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER FOR RENEWAL OF REGISTRATION DATED 26/11/2022 Exhibit p4 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDING ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 07.01.2023 Exhibit p5 TRUE COPY OF THE NOC DATE D 24.O9.1992 ISSUED BY THE KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD Exhibit p6 TRUE COPY OF THE DEALER'S LICENSE ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER IN THE YEAR 2OO7 Exhibit p7 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE DATA BANK Exhibit p8 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER IN FORM NO. 5 Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT IN WP(C) NO.30951/2022 DATED 11/10/2022

V v. Sasi v the Geologist

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V v. Sasi v the Geologist

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shibu G. Vs Dr. B. Sheela

Minikumari Vs the District Geologist

T.v.Suresh Kumar Vs State of Kerala

Sakkeer.a Vs the District Collector

Anas Property Developers Private Ltd. Vs the District Collector

Preethi Vs Senior Geologist