IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN FRIDAY, THE 6TH MAY 2011 / 16TH VAISAKHA 1933 WP(C).No. 12522 of 2011(M) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- THOMAS MATHAI, CHENKULATHU HOUSE, PATHANAMTHITTA. BY ADV. SRI.JACOB P.ALEX SRI.JOSEPH P.ALEX RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- KONNI GRAMA PANCHAYAT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, OFFICE OF KONNI GRAMA PANCHAYAT, KONNI P.O., PIN - 689 691, PATHANAMTHITTA. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/05/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss W.P.(C) NO.12522/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE APPLICATION DTD. 18.2.2011 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE RESPONDENT. P2:- COPY OF THE RECEIPT BEARING NO.5481 DTD. 28.2.2011 ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE RESPONDENT. P3:- COPY OF THE QUARRYING PERMIT BEARING NO.242/10- 11/QP/CRPS/GBS/996/DOPTA/M/2010 DTD. 7.6.2010 ISSUED FROM THE DISTRICT GEOLOGIST, PATHANAMTHITTA. P4:- COPY OF THE CONSENT TO OPERATE ISSUED BY THE KERALA STATE POLUTION CONTROL BOARD, DISTRICT OFFICE BEARING NO. QCO/PTA/73/2011 DTD. 14.2.2011. P5:- COPY OF THE EXPLOSIVES LICENCE ISSUED BY THE JOINT CHIEF CONTROLLER OF EXPLOSIVES, CHENNAI. P6:- COPY OF THE LICENCE BEARING NO.A2/376/2010-11 DTD. 25.2.2011. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS NIL:- TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE tss V.K.MOHANAN, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C)No.12522 of 2011 ------------------------------- Dated this the 6th day of May, 2011. J U D G M E N T The grievance of the petitioner is that, he had prepared Ext.P1 application for license under the Kerala Panchayat Raj (Issue of Licenses to Dangerous and Offensive Trades and Factories) Rules 1996 (the D & O Rules), but the same is pending consideration before the 1st respondent herein. Standing counsel for Konni Grama panchayat submitted that, there are complaints from various persons against issuing lincese as sought for as per Ext.P1. 2. Having regard to the facts and circumstances involved in the case, it can be seen that the respondent has already issued Ext.P6 license in favour of the petitioner but the same could not be utilised because Ext.P1 application is not finally disposed of. In the light of the above facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that, the writ petition can be disposed of directing the respondent to consider Ext.P1 application and to 2 W.P.(C)No.12522 of 2011 dispose the same on merits, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the concerned. In the result, this writ petition is disposed of directing the respondent to take up Ext.P1 application submitted by the petitioner and to dispose the same on merits, after hearing the petitioner as well as any other interested person, within 1 (one) month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, which will be produced by the petitioner. V.K.MOHANAN, Judge ami/