Allowed

Shyam Mathew v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC19 Dec 2023WP(C)/24071/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition challenging a private nursery operating without licenses. The court directed the Assistant Director of Agriculture (third respondent) to hear parties and take appropriate action within one month after receipt of the judgment.

What did the court decide?

Directed the third respondent to hear parties and take appropriate order and action within one month from receipt of the judgment copy.

Shyam Mathew Vs State of Kerala — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 19^TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2023 / 28TH AGRAHAYANA, 1945

¶5

WP(C) NO. 24071 OF 2023

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

SHYAM MATHEW, AGED 50 YEARS

¶8

S/O SCARIA, CHEMBAKKOTTU, CHAKKITTAPARA, KAYANNA P.O., KOYILANDY TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT., PIN - 673526

¶9

M.PROMODH KUMAR MAYA CHANDRAN

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM, PIN - 695001

¶12

2 THE PRINCIPAL AGRICULTURAL OFFICER OFFICE OF THE PRINCIPAL AGRICULTURE OFFICER, CIVIL STATION, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673020

¶13

3 THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE, PERAMBRA P.O., KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673525

¶14

4 THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, KRISHIBHAVAN, CHAKKITTAPARA, KOYILANDY TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN - 673526

¶15

5 MR. FIROZ, AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, FLORAZA AGRO GARDEN, CHAKKITTAPARA, KOYILANDY TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN - 673526

¶16

SRI.P.S.APPU – GP

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19.12.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

¶19

WP(C) NO. 24071 OF 2023

¶20

JUDGMENT

¶21

The petitioner alleges that the fifth respondent is conducting a private Horticulture Nursery, by name “Floraza Agro Garden”, in the Chakkittapara Grama Panchayat, without obtaining any of the imperative licences from the statutory Authorities. He, therefore, seeks that the competent among respondents 1 to 4 be ordered to take necessary action against the fifth respondent, adverting to Exts.P7 and P8, within a time frame to be fixed by this Court, which shall include the seizure of the available saplings from his alleged illegal nursery.

¶22

In response to the afore submissions of Sri.M.Promodh Kumar – learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri.P.S.Appu – learned Government Pleader, submitted that the official respondents have already investigated the matter, to find that the allegations of the petitioner are true. He added that, therefore, the competent among respondents 2, 3 and 4 will take necessary action, adverting to Ext.P7, after hearing both sides. He undertook that this will be done within a period of one month from now.

¶23

WP(C) NO. 24071 OF 2023

¶24

¶25

I notice from the file that, even though service of summons from this Court have been validly completed on the 5^th respondent, he has chosen not to be present in person or to be represented through counsel; inferentially guiding me to the impression that he has nothing to offer in opposition to the various reliefs sought for in this writ petition.

¶26

When I evaluate the afore submissions of the parties, it is evident that Ext.P7 has already been issued to the fifth respondent by the third respondent - Assistant Director of Agriculture. He has been notified clearly that, unless he obtains necessary licences under the statutory scheme, consequential action will be taken against him. However, there is nothing on record as to what action has been taken thereafter; or if the fifth respondent applied for and has obtained licences as mentioned therein.

¶27

In the afore circumstances, I am certain that the third respondent must hear the parties and take a final decision, adverting to Ext.P7.

¶28

In the result, this writ petition is allowed, with a direction to the third respondent to hear the petitioner and the fifth

¶29

WP(C) NO. 24071 OF 2023

¶30

respondent, adverting to Ext.P7; thus culminating in an appropriate order and necessary action thereon, as expeditiously as is possible, but not later than one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶31

Sd/- DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶32

JUDGE

¶33

stu

¶34

WP(C) NO. 24071 OF 2023

¶35

¶36

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 24071/2023

¶37

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶38

Exhibit P1	TRUE COPY OF THE PRINTOUT OF THE ADVERTISEMENT BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P2	TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT, DATED 14- 12-2021.
Exhibit P3	TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER, DATED 21-12-2021
Exhibit P4	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE DIRECTOR OF CPCRI, KASARAGOD DATED :20/07/2021
Exhibit P5	TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY SENT BY THE DIRECTOR OF CPCRI, KASARAGOD TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT, DATED 27-07-2021.
Exhibit P6	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 15-07-2021 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P7	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE 5TH RESPONDENT DATED 15- 07-2021.
Exhibit P8	TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER NO. 1796/2005 (AGRI) DATED 13.12.2005 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P9	TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT, DATED 25-10-2022.

Shyam Mathew v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shyam Mathew v. State 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

G.Jayakrishnan, S/O.K.Gopinathan Nair Vs State of Kerala

Dhanesh Kumar K.S. Vs State of Kerala

Shajimon George. Vs the Branch Manager South Indian Bank.

Pauline Mary Vs District Collector

Habib Mohamed Vs State of Kerala

M/S. Chicago Constructions International Private Limited Vs Kerala Water Authority