Disposed

Bindu Satish v. the Karthikappally Grama Panchayat

Kerala HC9 Jan 2023WP(C)/4005/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner seeking writ to renew LPG trade license and direct Panchayat to process application despite objections. Court found NOC issued by Fire and Rescue Department and directed Panchayat to renew license within one month.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the Secretary of the Karthikappally Grama Panchayat to renew the petitioner's license for ensuing years within one month of receipt of the judgment.

Bindu Satish Vs the Karthikappally Grama Panchayat — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

¶4

MONDAY, THE 9^TH DAY OF JANUARY 2023 / 19TH POUSHA, 1944 WP(C) NO. 4005 OF 2020

¶5

PETITIONER:

¶6

BINDU SATISH AGED 51 YEARS W/O. SATISH KUMAR, RESIDING AT KOICKAL HOUSE, MATTOM NORTH, THATTARAMPALAM P O, MAVELIKARA-3, 690103.

¶7

BY ADVS. R.RAJASEKHARAN PILLAI SABINA JAYAN

¶8

RESPONDENTS:

¶9

1 THE KARTHIKAPPALLY GRAMA PANCHAYAT REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, KARTHIKAPPALLY PO, 690516.

¶10

2 THE DISTRICT FIRE OFFICER, FIRE AND RESCUE SERVICES, ALAPPUZHA-688031.

¶11

3 THE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, FIRE AND RESCUE SERVICES, SOUTHERN DIVISION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695009.

¶12

R1 BY ADV. SRI.G.BENO

¶13

R2 & R3 BY SRI.JOBY JOSEPH, SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09.01.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

W.P.(C.) No. 4005/2020 2

¶16

JUDGMENT

¶17

This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking the following reliefs:-

¶18

"i. Issue a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ order or direction calling for the records leading to and culminating in Ext.P7 and quash the same as arbitrary illegal and unconstitutional and opposed to the 3^rd principle of natural justice.

¶19

ii. Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ order or direction commanding the first respondent to process the application for renewal of license submitted by the petitioner in March 2019 and issue license to the petitioner to conduct the LPG storage and Distribution.

¶20

iii. Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ order or direction commanding the first respondent not to interfere with the smooth conduct of the business of the petitioner.

¶21

iv. Issue such other writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper to meet the ends of justice and

¶22

v. Award costs to petitioner."

¶23

Brief material facts for the disposal of the writ

¶24

petition are as follows:-

¶25

Petitioner is the licensee and proprietor of a Liquefied

¶26

Petroleum Gas (LPG) Cylinder distribution agency known under the name and style of 'Prakasini Gas Agency',

¶27

W.P.(C.) No. 4005/2020 3

¶28

Nagiarkulangara. The case of the petitioner is that she has been conducting the establishment for the last more than 15 years after securing all licences, clearances and no objection certificates from all authorities. However, it is contended that the first respondent Panchayat, namely, Karthikappally Grama Panchayat, with an object to decline trade licence to the petitioner, insists for fresh No Objection Certificate (NOC) from the second respondent, which is absolutely unwarranted. It is also pointed out that the direction for production of a fresh NOC from the Fire and Rescue Department is arbitrary and illegal and liable to be interfered with by this Court.

¶29

Even though Panchayat has filed an objection before this Court Justifying the action taken by it, later petitioner has produced a communication issued by the Panchayat dated 18.12.2021 along, with I.A.No. 1 of 2022 from where I am satisfied that in view of the NOC issued by the Fire and Rescue Department, the Panchayat concedes that the petitioner is entitled to get the licence renewed. However, it is stated since this writ petition is pending

¶30

W.P.(C.) No. 4005/2020 4

¶31

before this Court, necessary directions are to be secured from this Court for renewal of the licence.

¶32

In my view, the sole contention raised by the

¶33

petitioner is that no fresh NOC from the Fire and Rescue Department is required. But fact remains, the said NOC was issued by the Fire and Rescue Department and therefore, there is no requirement at this stage to adjudicate on the issue as to whether a fresh NOC is required for renewal of trade licence by the Panchayat.

¶34

In that view of the matter, the writ petition is disposed of directing the Secretary of the Karthikappally Grama Panchayat to adhere to the undertaking made in the communication dated 08.12.2021 issued by the Secretary to the writ petitioner and renew the licence for the ensuing years, if no other legal impediments are standing on the way, at the earliest and at any rate, within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

Sd/-

SHAJI P. CHALY JUDGE

DCS/10.01.2023

W.P.(C.) No. 4005/2020 5

¶39

APPENDIX

¶40

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶41

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE LICENSE DATED 15.09.2017 FROM THE CONTROLLER OF EXPLOSIVES ERNAKULAM.

¶42

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 16.6.2004 FROM THE DIVISIONAL OFFICER FIRE AND RESCUE SERVICES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION FROM THE INSPECTOR FACTORIES AND BOYLERS DATED 27.04.2018. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTRATION FROM KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD DATED 08.05.2018. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE SANITARY CERTIFICATE FROM THE JUNIOR HEALTH INSPECTOR, MAHADEVIKAD. EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY OF THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 12.08.2019. EXHIBIT P6(A) TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGE OF EXT P6. EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 7.2.2020 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶43

EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER OF THIS HON'BLE COURT, DATED 3.5.2016 IN WP(C) NO.16842/2016.

¶44

EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 14/02/2020 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE THRIKKUNNAPPUZHA POLICE.

¶45

EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 04/02/2020 IN OS.NO.40/2020 OF THE MUNSIFFS COURT HARIPAD.

¶46

W.P.(C.) No. 4005/2020 6

¶47

EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER GIVEN TO THE PETITIONER BY THE SIGNATORIES OF EXT.R1A. EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION FROM THE NEIGHBORS OF THE PETITIONER'S ESTABLISHMENT TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 13/03/2019. EXHIBIT P13 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED FROM THE HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM COMPANY. EXHIBIT P14 TRUE COPY OF THE SANITARY CERTIFICATE ISSUED FROM THE HEALTH INSPECTOR MAHADEVIKADU. EXHIBIT P15 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR RENEWAL OF THE LICENCE SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P16 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 28/02/2020 FROM THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P17 TRUE COPY OF THE AMENDED FORMAT OF THE APPLICATION FORM FOR RENEWAL OF LICENSE UNDER THE DOT RULES. EXHIBIT P18 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 18.12.2021 FROM THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER

¶48

RESPONDNETS EXHIBITS

¶49

EXHIBIT R1(A) TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 21/03/2017 FILED BY THE LOCAL INHABITANTS. EXHIBIT R1(B) TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 23/03/2017 OF THE WARD MEMBER. EXHIBIT R1(C) TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 15/04/2017. EXHIBIT R1(D) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.C5-2167/17

¶50

W.P.(C.) No. 4005/2020 7

¶51

DATED 17/04/2017.

¶52

EXHIBIT R1(E) TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE NO.C5-1922/17 DATED 06/12/2017.

¶53

EXHIBIT R1(F) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.C994/2018 DATED 13/04/2018.

¶54

EXHIBIT R1(G) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.C5/2167/17 DATED 16/02/2018. EXHIBIT R1(H) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.994/18 DATED 25/07/2018 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶55

EXHIBIT R1(I) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.C994/18 DATED 06/08/19.

¶56

EXHIBIT R1(J) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER G.O. (MS)NO.170/2015/HOME DATED 12/08/2015.

¶57

EXHIBIT R1(K) TRUE COPY OF THE LICENSE NO. G/SC/KL/06/683(G22321) DATED 15.09.2017 AND THE CONDITIONS

Bindu Satish v. the Karthikappally Grama Panchayat

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bindu Satish v. the Karthikappally Grama Panchayat

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

M.M. Hamsa Vs the District Collector

Laila Lathief, Vs Kothamangalam Municipality

Renuka Devi Vs Binu Francis, (Age and Father’S Name Not Known to the Petitioner)

Shajahan Vs the Urban Co-Operative Bank Ltd.

Abdul Kareem Vs the Perinthalmanna Municipality

A.Venugopalan Vs the District Labour Officer