IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 18TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 27TH KARTHIKA 1933 WP(C).No. 30807 of 2011(A) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- 1. ANIL KUMAR. S., S/O.SIVARAMAN, ALUVILA THEKKETHIL, PADINJATTINKARA NORTH, KOTTARAKKARA. 2. AJIT KUMAR. S., S/O.SIVARAMAN, ALUVILA THEKKETHIL, PADINJATTINKARA NORTH, KOTTARAKKARA. BY ADV. SRI.K.MADHUSOODHANAN NAIR, SRI.S. MOHANA KUMAR. RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOLLAM-691 001. 2. SECRETARY, KULAKKADA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, MAVADY (PO), KOLLAM-691 001. R1 BY GOVT. PLEADER MR.MOHAMMED SHAH. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/11/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs WP(C).No. 30807 of 2011(A) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 PHOTOCOPY OF THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATES OF MOTOR VEHICLE BEARING REGISTRATION NO.KL-02-E-2086, LMV GOODS CARRIAGE TRUCK OF TATA/TATA 407. EXT.P-2 PHOTOCOPY OF THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE OF KL-07-J-4901, HGV GOODS CARRIAGE TRUCK OF TATA/TATA 1612. EXT.P-3 PHOTOCOPY OF PERMIT ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P-4 PHOTOCOPY OF PERMIT ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P-5 PHOTOCOPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT RECEIPT. EXT.P-6 PHOTOCOPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT RECEIPT. EXT.P-7 PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER DATED 12.09.2011. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:- NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE rs ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` W.P.(C) No. 30807 of 2011 A ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 18th day of November, 2011 J U D G M E N T ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Petitioners say that they were registered with the second respondent as transporting contractors of river sand. On expiry of the registration, petitioners applied for its renewal. Orders have not been passed. While so, under the Right to Information Act, on the applications made by the petitioners, Ext.P7 communication was issued on 12.09.2011 informing that the Panchayat has suspended further registration and that as and when the decision is reviewed, the petitioners' request will be considered. Case of the petitioners is that, after 12.09.2011, the Panchayat has reviewed its decision and that despite all this, decision has not been taken on their applications. It is complaining of the above, the writ petition is filed. 2. Going by Ext.P7, it is seen that the Panchayat had suspended further registration. It also shows that, if the W.P.(C) No.30807/2011 : 2 : decision is reviewed, the request will be considered. Since it is the case of the petitioners that the Panchayat has subsequently reviewed its decision, and if the said submission is factually correct, it is necessary that the Panchayat should consider the applications made by the petitioners. Therefore, I direct the Panchayat to consider the applications made by the petitioners, if their decision not to grant further registration has been renewed, as asserted by the petitioners. This shall be done, as expeditiously as possible on the production of a copy of this judgment. Writ petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) aks/18/11 // True Copy // P.A. To Judge