IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI THURSDAY, THE 27TH AUGUST 2009 / 5TH BHADRA 1931 WP(C).No. 22194 of 2009(T) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- LEMBI DEVASSY ,S/O.DEVASSY AGED 37 YEARS, RESIDING AT CHANAYIL VEEDU KODUVALLY, KAITHARAM.PO, NORTH PARAVUR ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.S.R.SREEJITH RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE SECRETARY ,G.C.D.A ERNAKULAM , P.B.NO.2012 KADAVANTHARA, KOCHI 20. 2. THE CORPORATION OF KOCHI REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY 3. THE HEALTH OFFICER, CORPORATION OF KOCHI P.B.NO.1016,ERNAKULAM, KOCHI 11 4. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF AGRCULTURE (AUDIT) OFFICE OF PRINCIPAL AGRICULTURAL OFFICE KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM. ADV. SRI.M.K.THANKAPPAN,SC,GCDA,FOR R1 SMT.M.K.PUSHPALATHA,SC,COCHIN CORPORATI FOR R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI,J. ------------------------- W.P ( C) No.22194 of 2009 -------------------------- Dated this the 27th August,2009 J U D G M E N T Petitioner claims to be the beneficiary under a scheme called 'Mission for Kerala's Development and Poverty Alleviation (vision 2010) Scheme on value addition and post harvest Management” . Under the said Scheme, he claims to have been allotted with a Elaneer Parlour Unit and he availed a loan of Rs.50,000/- from the State Bank of India. He made an application before the 1st respondent seeking a license to conduct a Tender Coconut Parlour Unit. He was then told that by Ext.P1 that he will have to obtain a No Objection Certificate from the 3rd respondent, the Health Officer, Corporation of Kochi. Petitioner then approached the 2nd respondent, Secretary of the Corporation who directed the petitioner to obtain a certificate from the concerned bank stating that the Bank has disbursed the amount and certificate from the 4th respondent Deputy Director of Agriculture, stating that he is a member of Special Employment Generation W.P ( C) No.22194 of 2009 2 Programme for one lakh youth. He was also asked to give an undertaking to the effect that the petitioner shall dispose of the waste arising from the running of coconut Parlour unit and shall comply with the guidelines framed by the 2nd respondent Corporation. 2. Exts.P2 and P3 evidences that such certificates have been obtained. Ext.P4 is an undertaking given by the petitioner. The 3rd respondent then issued NOC as evidenced by Ext.P5. But the 1st respondent, in spite of all these, rejected the petitioner’s application for license as evidenced by Ext.P6, which has been challenged in the writ petition. 3. A counter affidavit has been filed by the 1st respondent. Reference is made to Ext. R1(c) resolution of the Executive Committee. 4. Heard counsel on both sides. First respondent has not given any reason for rejecting the petitioner’s application for license. It is now agreed that is permission sought to conduct a mobile Elaneer vending unit, to be normally stationed before the International Stadium at W.P ( C) No.22194 of 2009 3 Kaloor. It cannot be said that the proposal contains any inherent danger or other factor which would be detrimental to public interest. Conditions can also be imposed by the licensing authority in the matter of vending. That is different from rejecting the application, without any reasons, whatsoever. 5. Ext.P6 shall therefore stand set aside. The resolution taken by the Executive Committee of the GCDA as evidenced by E. R1 (c) shall also therefore be rendered ineffected. Respondents shall take a fresh decision on the petitioner’s application in the light of the observations contained in this judgment within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Writ petition is disposed of as above. (V.GIRI,JUDGE) ma W.P ( C) No.22194 of 2009 4 W.P ( C) No.22194 of 2009 5