IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.R.BANNURMATH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 30TH MARCH 2009 / 9TH CHAITHRA 1931 WA.No. 751 of 2009 -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC : 1671/09 dated 09/02/2009 APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS 1 & 2: -------------------------------------- 1. EXPORT INSPECTION AGENCY-KOCHI 27/1767 A, SHIPYARD QUARTERS ROAD, PANAMPILLY NAGAR SOUTH KOCHI 682036. 2. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR EXPORT INSPECTION AGENCY-KOCHI 27/1767 A, SHIPYARD QUARTERS ROAD,PANAMPILLY NAGAR SOUTH KOCHI 682036. BY ADV. SRI.JOHN VARGHESE RESPONDENT/APPELLANT & 3RD RESPONDENT: ---------------------------------------------------- 1. STAR FISH EXPORTS, PEEVES BUILDING 22/1318 EDAKOCHI 682 008 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER V.GEORGE JOSEPH 2. M.V.MAHAMMOOD, S/O.P.V.IBRAHIM RESIDING AT CC 37/1984-D STERLING ESTATE, KUMARASANAN ROAD, KALOOR, KOCHI 682 017. R1 BY ADV. SRI. R. AZAD BABU R2 BY ADV. SRI. A. BALAGOPALAN. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.R. Bannurmath, C.J. & Kurian Joseph, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.A.No. 751 OF 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this, the 30th day of March, 2009 JUDGMENT Kurian Joseph, J. This is an appeal at the instance of respondents 1 and 2 in WP(C) No.1671/09. The said writ petition was disposed of by judgment dated 09.02.09, directing the appellants herein to process the application for renewal of approval for export of fish and fishery products. As per Ext.P1 the appellants raised two objections. (i) the writ petitioner did not have renewed the lease agreement. (ii) the writ petitioner did not produce the MPEDA registration. The learned Single Judge in view of the Division Bench decision of this Court in Marimuthu v. Director General of Police [1999(3) KLT 662] held that since the tenant has been holding over the premises, for the mere refusal on the part of the landlord to renew the licence if the WA No. 751/09 -:2:- application is otherwise in order, the same has to be processed. There cannot be any quarrel on the well settled proposition noted above. As far as the certificate regarding the registration is concerned, the learned Single Judge directed the appellants to process the application making it clear that the approval need be issued only after the production of certificate of registration from MPEDA by the writ petitioner. 3. The contention of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant is that the writ petitioner had an effective statutory remedy and the writ petition itself should have been dismissed on that short ground. However, it is contended that the lease agreement as well as the registration are the mandatory requirements for renewal of the approval. We are afraid that the contentions cannot be fully appreciated. As far as the alternate remedy is concerned, in view of the settled legal position the learned Single Judge has exercised his discretion holding that in WA No. 751/09 -:3:- the factual matrix as appearing in the writ petition it was not necessary to relegate the writ petitioner to pursue their statutory remedy. We are of the view that in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, for the only reason that statutory remedy is available to the writ petitioner, this court need not relegate them to pursue that remedy. The essential dispute is only with regard to the pre-conditions for processing the application for renewal of the approval. As far as one of the objections is concerned, the position regarding the lease agreement, it is covered in favour of the writ petitioners as noted above in Marimuthu's case(Supra). As far as the production of documents are concerned, the learned Single Judge has made it clear in the judgment itself that the certificate of approval need be issued only after the production of required certificate by the writ petitioner. Therefore, in that view of the matter also we do not think that any interference is called for. In the circumstances the writ appeal is dismissed, however, making it WA No. 751/09 -:4:- clear that renewal of approval need be done only after the writ petitioner producing the required certificate from the MPEDA. S.R. Bannurmath, Chief Justice. Kurian Joseph, Judge. ttb