IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR FRIDAY, THE 11TH MARCH 2011 / 20TH PHALGUNA 1932 WP(C).No. 11002 of 2010(A) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- K.P.MOHANAN, S/O.PARAMESWARAN NAIR, KODIKULATH HOUSE, KUMBALERI P.O., MEENANGADI (VIA), WAYANAD. BY ADVS. SRI.M.P.ASHOK KUMAR, SRI.S.N.SREEKANTH. RESPONDENT: ---------------------- AMBALAVAYAL GRAMA PANCHAYATH, AMBALAVAYAL P.O., WAYANAD DISTRICT, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY. *ADDITIONAL RESPONDENTS 2 TO 6 IMPLEADED: 2. JOSEPH.C.M., AGED 36 YEARS, S/O. C.O. MATHAI, RESIDING AT CHERADIYIL HOUSE, KUMBALERY.P.O., MEENANGADI (VIA), WAYANAD. 3. POULOSE.K.T., AGED 60 YEARS, S/O. THOMAS, RESIDING AT KOTTAKUDI HOUSE, KUMBALERY.P.O., MEENANGADI (VIA), WAYANAD. 4. RAJAN.N.R., AGED 33 YEARS, S/O. RAMACHANDRAN, RESIDING AT NAKLIKKAD HOUSE, KUMBLERY.P.O., WAYANAD – 673 591. 5. KOCHACKO.A.P., AGED 63 YEARS, S/O. POULOSE, RESIDING AT ADAPPAT HOUSE, KUMBALERY.P.O., MEENANGADI (VIA), WAYANAD. W.P.(C). NO.11002/2010-A: 6. K.C. ABRAHAM, AGED 57 YEARS, S/O. CHERIYAN, RESIDING AT KOCHUPURAKAL HOUSE, KUMBALERY.P.O., MEENANGADI (VIA), WAYANAD. *ADDL. R2 TO R6 IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DTD. 21/06/2010 IN I.A. NO.7197/10. R1 BY ADV. SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI, ADDL. R2 TO R6 BY SMT.DAISY A.PHILIPOSE. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/03/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.11002/2010-A: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE APPLICATION DTD. 23/11/09. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE RECEIPT DTD. 23/11/09. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DTD. 04/07/09. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 30/10/2009. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE NOC DTD. 06/01/2010. EXT.P.6: COPY OF THE NOC DTD. 25/01/2010. EXT.P.7: COPY OF THE CONSENT ORDER DTD. 09/02/2010. EXT.P.8: COPY OF THE LICENCE DTD. 29/01/10. EXT.P.9: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 27/02/10. EXT.P.10: COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE DEPT. OF COMMERCIAL TAXES. EXT.P.11: COPY OF THE STOP MEMO DTD. 05/03/2010 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT PANCHAYATH. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: EXT.R1: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE RESPONDENT. EXT.R2.A: COPY OF THE REPORT PUBLISHED IN MANGALAM DAILY NEWSPAPER DTD. 30/11/2009. EXT.R2.B: COPY OF THE REPORT PUBLISHED IN DESHABHIMANI DAILY NEWSPAPER DTD. 11/04/2010. EXT.R2.A: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD 21/01/2010 ISSUED BY THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER OF THE KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD. EXT.R2.B: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 25/11/2010 ISSUED BY THE ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER OF THE KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD. EXT.R2.C: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C).NO.13674/2010 DTD. 03/02/2011. EXT.R2.D: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 24/11/2010. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. Prv. C.T.RAVIKUMAR, J. --------------------------------------- W.P(C)No.11002 of 2010 ---------------------------------------- Dated 11th March, 2011 JUDGMENT This writ petition has been filed mainly challenging Ext.P11 and for a declaration that the petitioner is entitled to continue the unit by name M/s.Kumbaleri Crushers under section 236(3) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act. 2. In the light of Ext.R2(c) the second prayer of the petitioner for a declaration as mentioned above cannot be granted. 3. The learned standing counsel appearing for the first respondent submitted that in fact, Ext.P8 application submitted by the petitioner was defective. Subsequently, the petitioner has cured the defects as is obvious from Ext.P12. The stand of the first respondent was that on account of the objections raised by respondents 2 to 6 viz., Ext.R2 (d), the request of the petitioner cannot be considered. The contention of the petitioner is that since the first respondent has received Ext.P8 application the first respondent is bound to consider the same and pass orders thereon. Since the first respondent is competent to consider the application, he cannot disuse that power. True that, when an authority is clothed with the power to consider a particular matter, that authority has WP(C).No.11002/2010 2 to consider the issue when that authority is called to exercise that power. Evidently, in this case, the petitioner submitted Ext.P8 application for licence. Necessarily, the first respondent has to take a decision thereon. If the first respondent has received the complaints from respondents 2 to 6 it will also be open to the first respondent to consider the objections raised by respondents 2 to 6 and to take a decision after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner as also to respondents 2 to 6. Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the first respondent to consider Ext.P8 application and pass orders thereon expeditiously, at any rate, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, with notice to the petitioner as also to respondents 2 to 6. Sd/- C.T.RAVIKUMAR Judge TKS // true copy // P.S. to Judge