IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 29TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 7TH ASWINA 1932 WP(C).No. 23128 of 2010(M) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- K.J.THOMAS,KASSAMKUTTIYIL VEEDU, PULPALLY PO, SULTHAN BATHERY,WAYANAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.S.M.PRASANTH RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------- 1. THE PRINCIPAL AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, WAYANAD DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, CIVIL STATION, KALPETTA NORTH PO, WAYANAD DISTRICT-673121. 2. KURIAKOSE,S/O.LATE PAILY,MUTTATH VEEDU,PULPALLY PO, SULTHAN BATHERY,WAYANAD DISTRICT 673 579. ADDL.R3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE, THE PRINCIPAL AGRICULTURE OFFICE, CIVIL STATION, KALPETT A NORTH P.O, WAYANAD 673 121. (ADDL.R3 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER IN IA NO.13472/10 DT 29.9.2010) ADV. SRI.S.EASWARAN FOR R2 GOVT.PLEADER SRI.DILEEP MOHAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THEFOLLOWING: WPC NO.23128/10 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE LICENCE FOR THE YEAR 2010-11 ISSUED BY THE PULPALLY GRAMA PANCHAYAT. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE LICENCE UNDER RULE 10(4) OF THE INSECTICIDES RULE, 1971 FOR SELLING THE INSECTICIDES. EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER FOR THE RENEWAL OF THE LICENCE FOR THE YEAR 2009. EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN REMINDER FOR THE RENEWAL OF THE LICENCE FOR THE YEAR 2009 DT 5.10.2009. EXT.P6: TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR THE RENEWAL OF LICENCE FOR THE YEAR 2010-12 DT 25.3.2010. EXT.P7: TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT ACKNOWLEDGING THE RECIEPT OF THE APPLICATION FOR RENEWAL OF THE LICENCE FOR THE YEAR 2010-12 DT 26.3.2010. EXT.P8: TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BEFORE THE TALUK LEGAL SERVICES COMMITTEE. EXT.P9: TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, KRISHI BHAVAN, PULAPALLY DT 16.7.2010. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Rp ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 23128 OF 2010 (M) ===================== Dated this the 29th day of September, 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P9. According to the petitioner, since 1978, in a premises taken on lease from the 2nd respondent, he has been conducting business of selling pesticides on the strength of the licence issued by the Panchayat and the authorities under the Insecticides Rules. In this writ petition, what he complains of is, that on expiry of the period of Ext.P3 licence, when Ext.P4 application for renewal of the licence for the year 2009-10 was submitted, orders were not passed on the application. Thereafter, again he submitted Ext.P6 for licence for the years 2010-12. Thereupon, he was issued Ext.P9 communication informing that for want of consent from the 2nd respondent-the landlord, the application cannot be considered. It is thereupon this writ petition is filed contending that that the consent of the landlord is not a requirement of the Insecticides Rules for grant of licence. 2. Learned Government Pleader relied on the provisions of Rule 12 of the Rules to sustain Ext.P9. However, a reading of WPC No. 23128/10 :2 : Rule 12 show that all that the licensing officer is to be satisfied is that the premises in respect of which the licence is to be granted are adequate and equipped with proper storage accommodation for avoiding any hazards for preserving the properties of insecticides. Thus, Rule does not contemplate consent of the landlord, and therefore, Ext.P9 is unsustainable. 3. However, counsel for the 2nd respondent landlord submits that the building is a dilapidated one and that the building is not one which satisfies the requirements of Rule 12 for grant of licence. He also submits that eviction proceedings initiated by him is pending consideration of the Rent Control Court. It is also his contention that Ext.P1 licence issued by the Panchayat does not authorise the petitioner to carry on this business and that the petitioner should have obtained necessary licence for engaging in the business of pesticides. 4. The question whether the building in respect of which licence is applied for by the petitioner is one which satisfies the requirements of Rule 12 is a matter for the licensing authority to consider. Similarly the question as to whether any other licence is WPC No. 23128/10 :3 : to be obtained by the petitioner from the Panchayat authorising to carry on the business is not a matter arising in this writ petition. As far as this writ petition is concerned, all that this Court need be concerned is the validity of Ext.P9, where the application of the petitioner was refused to be considered for the reason that consent of the landlord was not obtained by him. As already found, Rule 12 relied on against the petitioner does not require production of a consent of the landlord. 5. The writ petition is therefore disposed of directing the licensing authority to consider the application made by the petitioner in accordance with the provisions of the Insecticides Rules and any other rules which are relevant and pass orders in accordance with law. Orders shall be passed at any rate within one month of production of a copy of this judgment. Needless to say that this order shall not stand stand in the way of the landlord prosecuting the proceedings before the Rent Control Court or prosecuting his grievances before the Panchayat. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp