IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR MONDAY, THE 23RD MAY 2011 / 2ND JYAISHTA 1933 WP(C).No. 30849 of 2010(E) ----------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- L.SASIDHARAN, AGED 54 YEARS, S/O.LAKSHMANAN, VADAKKE ALUVILA VEEDU, KOLANNUR, EDAKKIDAM, EZHUKON, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.G.D.PANICKER SMT.JEENA JOSEPH RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE EZHUKON GRAMA PANCHAYATH, EZHUKON, KOLLAM DISTRICT, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, 691505. 2. STATE OF KERALA, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT- 695 001. 3. SRI.ANIRUDHAN, LALSADANAM, S/O.SRI.NARAYANAN, EZHUKONE P.O., KOLLAM-691 505. 4. TRIBUNAL FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001. R1 BY ADV. SRI.M.K.CHANDRA MOHAN DAS R3 BY ADVS.ADV. SRI.T.RAMPRASAD UNNI, SRI.J.R.PREM NAVAZ. R2 & R4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.A.J.VARGHESE. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/05/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss .P.(C) NO.30849/2010 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE SALE DEED DTD. 8.9.1978. P2:- COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN OP,.15413/1997, DTD. 4.11.1997. P3:- COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WRIT APPEAL NO.2257/1997 DTD. 11.12.1997. P4:- COPY OF THE LINCENSES ISSUED UP TO 31.3.2003. P5:- COPY OF THE CONSENT LETTER ISSUED BY THE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD. P6:- COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DTD. 25.10.2005 P7:- COPY OF THE LICNESE DTD. 8.2.2005. P8:- COPY OF THE ORDER NO.PCB/KO/A/70/04 DTD. 3.3.2006. P9:- COPY OF THE CONSENT ORDER DT. 29.7.2006 PASSED BY THE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD. P10:- COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 1.9.06 PERMITTED THE PETITIONER TO GRIND CHILLY ALSO ALONG WITH CURRY POWDER. P11:- COPY OF THE DECISION OF THE PANCHAYAT COMMITTEE DTD. 11.6.2009. P12:- COPY OF THE ORDER DT. 8.10.09 IN REVISION PETITION NO.77/2009. P13:_ COPY OF THE APPLCIATION PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE IST RESPONDENT DTD. 14.10.2009. P14:- COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD. 18.2.2010. IN WPC. 19123/09. P15:- COPY OF THE RESOLUTION OF THE PANCHAYATH DTD. 27.3.2010. P16:- COPY OF THE ORDER IN APPEAL NO.480/2010 BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUION TRIVANDRUM, DTD. 3.8.2010. P17:- COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 24.9.2010. P18:- COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 26.10.2010 OF THE IST RESPONDENT PANCHAYAT. P19:- COPY OF THE EXPLANATION OF THE PETITIONER GIVEN TO THE IST RESPONDENT DTD. 15.12.2010. P20:- COPY OF THE LICENCE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE IST RESPONDENT DT. 14.2.2011. TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE tss C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. ........................................... W.P.(C).NO.30849 OF 2010 ............................................. Dated this the 23rd day of May, 2011. JUDGMENT Petitioner is conducting the activities of milling paddy, powdering of rice/pulse/chilly and crushing of copra. Third respondent has raised certain grievances regarding functioning of the said flour mill and that ultimately culminated in Ext.P16 order by the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions. Pursuant to Ext.P16, the panchayat has issued Ext.P17 and modified the earlier licence issued to the petitioner limiting it to production of rice powder and wheat powder. That apart, the panchayat has issued certain other directions to the petitioner to carry out certain modifications. The contention of the petitioner is that all such suggested modifications were actually carried out and the said fact was duly intimated to the first respondent panchayat. Later, the petitioner has submitted Ext.P20 application for licence for conducting the grinding activities in his unit, on 14.2.2011. His grievance is that, so far, no orders have been passed thereon. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned standing counsel for the 1st respondent, learned W.P.(C).NO.30849 OF 2010 : 2 : Government Pleader and also learned counsel for the 3rd respondent. As already noticed herein, contention of the petitioner is that he has already effected modification as directed by the panchayat and it was only after carrying out such modification that Ext.P20 application has been submitted for licence for the year 2011-12. Admittedly the said application is still pending consideration. In view of the pendency of the said application, I do not think it necessary to consider merits of the rival contentions at this stage. Therefore, without making any observations as to the merits of the rival contentions, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the 1st respondent to consider Ext.P20 application submitted by the petitioner for licence, bearing in mind the directions of the Tribunal in Ext.P16, expeditiously, at any rate, within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Needless to say that before taking any decision on Ext.P20, third respondent shall also be afforded with an opportunity of being heard. C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE. cl