IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 3RD MARCH 2009 / 12TH PHALGUNA 1930 WP(C).No. 6717 of 2009(H) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. T.N.MOHANAN, AGED 55 YEARS, S/O.NARAYANAN, THEKKUMCHERIL HOUSE, KARIKODE P.O., PERUVA VIA, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 2. K.D.ANTU, AGED 37 YEARS, S/O.DEVASIKUTTY, KALLELIVEEDU, CHOWARA P.O., ALUVA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.ALIAS M.CHERIAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, KOTTAYAM. 2. VILLAGE OFFICER, VILLAGE OFFICE, MULAKKULAM, VAIKOM TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 3. SECRETARY, MULAKKULAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH, PERUVA P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. MR.P.N.SANTHOSH, GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) No.6717 of 2009 --------------------------------- Dated, this the 3rd day of March, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioners claim that they are operating brick manufacturing units. They are aggrieved by Exts.P10 & P11 stop memos issued by the 2nd respondent in pursuance to the directions issued by the 1st respondent. 2. According to the petitioners, they are operating their establishments with all licences. In so far as the Panchayat licence is concerned, it is stated that they have already applied for renewal of their licence by submitting Exts.P2 & P7 applications to the 3rd respondent. Although the date of Ext.P2 is 16/01/2009, there is an endorsement, which indicates that the receipt of the application was on 31/01/2009. In so far as Ext.P7 is concerned, the application is dated 19/10/2008 and the endorsement thereon shows that it was received on 20/10/2008. 3. As already stated, it is the case of the petitioners' that they do have all the required licences, and in so far as the Panchayat licence is concerned, their case is that since the receipt of the applications, 30 days have already expired and that as no order has WP(C) No.6717/2009 -2- been communicated, they are entitled to have a deemed licence as provided under Section 236(3) of the Panchayati Raj Act. 4. In view of the claim of the petitioners that they have all the licences, and as the stop memos have been issued on the assumption that they do not have the licences, I direct that it will be open to the petitioners to appear before the 1st respondent, on whose directions the stop memos were issued, produce the licences and satisfy the District Collector that their establishments are running legitimately. 5. It is directed that if the petitioners produce the documents as above, the 1st respondent shall consider the same and if satisfied that the establishments are legitimately run with all the necessary licences, necessary orders reviewing or recalling the stop memos, referred to above, shall be issued. 6. The petitioners shall produce a copy of the judgment along with all the licences they have, before the 1st respondent for compliance. The writ petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg