IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN TUESDAY, THE 22ND MARCH 2011 / 1ST CHAITHRA 1933 WP(C).No. 38561 of 2010(U) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- M.D.BABY, AGED 46 YEARS, S/O.DAVID B.P.ASSOCIATES, MADAPPILLI HOUSE KIZHAKKAMBALAM,ERNAKULAM DIST BY ADV. SRI.V.CHITAMBARESH, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.T.C.SURESH MENON SRI.JIBU P THOMAS SRI.P.S.APPU SRI.A.R.NIMOD SRI.C.A.ANOOP RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE DESAMANGALAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH DESAMANGALAM P.O.,THRISSUR PIN-679532,REP.BY ITS SECRETARY 2. K.SASIDHARAN, KARAYIL HOUOSE, DESAMANGALAM P.O.,THRISSUR, PIN-639532 BY ADV. SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN FOR R1 BY ADV. SRI.P.K.IBRAHIM FOR R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.N. RAVINDRAN, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.38561 of 2010 ------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of March, 2011 J U D G M E N T The main relief sought in the writ petition is for a declaration that the petitioner is having the required licence under the provisions of the Kerala Panchayat Raj (Issue of Licence to Dangerous and Offensive Trades and Factories) Rules, 1996 by virtue of section 236 (3) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act read with section 10 of the Kerala Industrial Single Window Clearance Boards and Industrial Township Area Development Act, 1999 and therefore the petitioner is entitled to run his crusher unit. The petitioner has also prayed for an order directing the first respondent to grant a licence under the Kerala Panchayat Raj (Issue of Licence of Dangerous and Offensive Trades and Factories) Rules, 1996 which was applied for by the petitioner in Ext.P9 application. 2. The second respondent who is the petitioner in the connected writ petition, W.P.(C) No.21465 of 2010 has filed a counter affidavit opposing the writ petition. He has raised various contentions including the contention that if the petitioner is allowed to operate the quarry and the stone crushing unit, it will be detrimental to the interests of the residents of the locality. 3. When the writ petition came up for hearing today, W.P.(C) No.38561 of 2010 2 Sri.V.Chitambaresh, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner submitted with reference to Ext.R5(h) resolution adopted by the Deshamangalam Grama Panchayat on 9.3.2011 that pursuant to the said resolution, Ext.R5(i) licence was issued to the petitioner to run the crusher unit and the quarry, and therefore, the writ petition has become infructuous. Sri.P.K.Ibrahim the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent submitted that leaving open the entitlement of the second respondent to challenge the decision granting the licence in other appropriate proceedings, the writ petition may be dismissed as infructuous. In the light of the subsequent development, viz., the grant of a licence in favour of the petitioner, the writ petition is dismissed as infructuous, reserving liberty with the second respondent to challenge the grant of licence in other appropriate proceedings. P.N. RAVINDRAN, JUDGE. nj.