IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 18TH JANUARY 2010 / 28TH POUSHA 1931 WP(C).No. 1411 of 2010(B) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- K.B.MAKKAR, KOCHUMADATHIL, PROPRIETOR, M/S.SUNITHA CLAY WORKS, SOUTH ADUVASSERY, CHENGAMANAD P.O., ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.V.PHILIP MATHEWS RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. PIRAVOM GRAMA PANCHAYATH (SPSECIAL GRADE) REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE SECRETARY, PIRAVOM GRAMA PANCHAYATH. 3. THE GEOLOGIST, DEPARTMENT OF MINING AND GEOLOGY, DISTRICT OFFICE, ERNAKULAM. ADV. SRI.S.SREEKUMAR FOR R MS.K.R.DEEPA, SR. GOVT. PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) No.1411 of 2010 (B) --------------------------------- Dated, this the 18th day of January, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner submits that with all licences he has been running a small scale brick manufacturing unit. According to the petitioner, on the expiry of the licence, he submitted an application to the respondent Panchayat for renewal of his licence. However, the same has not been granted. It is stated that the petitioner does not intend to do any clay mining for the purpose of manufacturing. On the other hand, he intends to carry on manufacturing activities utilising the clay already stored by him in his premises. It is stated that even if licence is granted for his aforesaid activities, the same will not cause any prejudice to anybody. He refers to Ext.P5 judgment dated 24/11/2009 rendered by this Court in WP(C) No.33107/2009 in identical circumstances, and prays for a direction to the Panchayat to renew his licence. 2. I heard the learned standing counsel appearing for the 1st respondent Panchayat. 3. Although, submissions have been made by the learned WP(C) No.1411/2010 -2- standing counsel for the Panchayat to sustain the decision taken by the Panchayat, still having regard to the fact that Ext.P5 judgment deals with an identical case, I see no reason to take a different view. Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of directing that the Secretary of the Panchayat will inspect the site, where the petitioner claims to have stored clay for the manufacturing activities, and on such inspection, if the Secretary of the Panchayat is satisfied that the clay is not mined recently, the application for renewal of the licence for manufacturing bricks utilising the clay that is already stored, will be considered and appropriate orders will be passed by the respondent Panchayat. It is further directed that the respondent Panchayat will maintain strict vigil to ensure that under the guise of the licence granted, the petitioner does not resort to further mining. The inspection and passing of fresh orders as directed above shall be completed as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within two weeks of production of a copy of this judgment, along with a copy of this writ petition. This writ petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg