IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR FRIDAY, THE 8TH APRIL 2011 / 18TH CHAITHRA 1933 WP(C).No. 6834 of 2011(D) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- 1. SRI.P.C.PARAMESHWARAN,AGED 45 YEARS, S/O.CHATHUNNY,PAZHAMUKKIL HOUSE,P.O.CHITTILAPPILLY THRISSUR DISTRICT. 2. SMT.ANITHA PARAMESWARAN,AGED 38 YEARS, W/O.PARAMESWARAN.P.C,PAZHAMUKKIL HOUSE, P.O.CHITTILAPPILLY,THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.C.PRABIN BENNY RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------- ADAT GRAMA PANCHAYATH,PURANATTUKARA.P.O, THRISSUR-680551, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/04/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss C.T.RAVIKUMAR, J. ---------------------------- W.P.(C)No.6834 of 2011 ---------------------------- Dated 8th April, 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioners were jointly running a firm in the name and style “Aswin Furniture Work” in building No.327 A of Ward No.3 of the respondent Panchayat on the strength of Ext.P1 licence which was extended from time to time. While so, they were issued with Ext.P8 stop memo. As per Ext.P8, the petitioners were informed that on account of the failure on the part of the petitioners to produce the consent letter from the Pollution Control Board and taking into account the orders of the Panchayat Council the order cancelling the licence of the petitioners is confirmed. On receipt of Ext.P8 stop memo the petitioners have submitted Ext.P9 reply. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that, in fact, the respondent should not have and could not have assigned such a reason in the light of Ext.P7. Ext.P7 is the consent given by the Pollution Control Board to operate the aforesaid SSI unit. It is dated 12.1.2011 and it is valid up to 31.12.2013. Ext.P7 would further reveal that the copy of the order was forwarded to the Secretary of the respondent Panchayat. That apart, it is contended by the petitioners that on receipt of Ext.P1 they have offered their explanation through Ext.P9 and along with Ext.P9 they have also produced a copy of Ext.P7. Despite WP(C).No.6834/2011 2 the receipt of Ext.P9 and copy of Ext.P7 the respondent is not taking any further step. It is in the said circumstances that this writ petition has been filed. 2. Obviously, Ext.P8 would reveal that the failure on the part of the petitioners to produce the consent to operate from the Pollution Control Board is the reason for cancellation of the licence issued to the petitioners to operate. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that in fact, what has been done by the respondent is nothing but a refusal to renew Ext.P1 licence issued to the petitioners. In the said circumstances, it is contended that the inaction on the part of the respondent, even after receipt of Ext.P9 is inexpiable and since Ext.P8 was issued based on a non-existent reason it requires reconsideration. As already noticed hereinbefore, the basis for refusal to renew the licence issued to the petitioners is their alleged failure to produce the consent to operate issued by the Pollution Control Board. In that context, it is apposite to note that Ext.P7 would reveal that a copy of the consent to operate was forwarded directly by the Pollution Control Board to the Secretary of the respondent Panchayat. There is no reason to believe that after marking a copy of Ext.P7 to the Secretary of the respondent Panchayat the Pollution Control Board would withhold the WP(C).No.6834/2011 3 same. Even if it was withheld a copy of Ext.P7 was forwarded by the petitioners along with Ext.P9. In the said circumstances, I am of the view that the issue involved in this case requires reconsideration by the respondent. To enable the respondent to consider the issue afresh, in the light of Ext.P7, Ext.P8 is set aside. It is to be noted in this context that even after receipt of notice in this proceedings the respondent Panchayat has not cared to enter appearance in this proceedings. Consequently, there will be a direction to the respondent to consider the request of the petitioners for renewal of the licence taking into account Ext.P7 a copy of which has been produced along with Ext.P9. This shall be done expeditiously, at any rate, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. Sd/- C.T.RAVIKUMAR Judge TKS // true copy // P.S. to Judge