IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD NOVEMBER 2011 / 2ND AGRAHAYANA 1933 WP(C).No. 31153 of 2011(T) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S) : --------------------- AHAMMEDKUTTY, S/O.SAIDU MUHAMMED, AGED 37 YEARS, VADATHOLAKKARA, ERUMATHALA P.O., EDATHALA, ALUVA EAST VILLAGE, ALUVA TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.M.ZIRAJ RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, KOTTAYAM-686 002. 2. DISTRICT GEOLOGIST, MINING AND GEOLOGY OFFICE, CIVIL STATION, COLLECTORATE P.O., KOTTAYAM-686 002. R1 & R2 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. MOHAMMED SHAH. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: NS W.P.C. NO. 31153/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS : EXHIBIT P1 : COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 18.10.2011 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE SECOND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P2 : COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 18.10.2011 ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P3 : COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 11.11.2011 BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P4 : COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 25.5.2011 IN WPC NO. 14073/2011 ON THE FILE OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL / TRUE COPY / P.A. TO JUDGE NS ANTONY DOMINIC, J ....................................................... W.P.(C).31153/2011 .............................................. Dated this the 23rd day of November, 2011 JUDGMENT Petitioner made Ext.P1 application for a dealer's licence under the KMMC Rules. That application was declined to be considered and Ext.P3 communication has been issued informing the petitioner that the District Collector has instructed not to consider such applications. It is in these circumstances the writ petition is filed. 2. The duty performed by the second respondent is a statutory duty conferred on him under the KMMC Rules. Performance of such duties cannot be prevented either by the first respondent or anybody else. Therefore, the fact that the oral order has been issued by the first respondent as mentioned in Ext.P3, is of no consequence. In that view of the matter, I direct the second respondent to consider Ext.P1 application on merits and in accordance with law and orders thereon be passed, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within eight weeks of production of a copy of this judgment. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge mrcs