IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 9TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 20TH MAGHA 1930 WP(C).No. 1671 of 2009(Y) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): -------------------------- STAR FISH EXPORTS, PEEVEES BUILDING, 22/1318, EDAKOCHI - 682 008, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, V. GEORGE JOSEPH. BY ADV.MR.R.AZAD BABU RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. EXPORT INSPECTION AGENCY, KOCHI, 27/1767 A, SHIPYARD QUARTERS ROAD, PANAMPILLY NAGAR (SOUTH), KOCHI-682 036. 2. DEPUTY DIRECTOR, EXPORT INSPECTION AGENCY, KOCHI, 27/1767 A, SHIPYARD QUARTERS ROAD, PANAMPILLY NAGAR (SOUTH), KOCHI-682 036. 3. M.V. MAHAMOOD, S/O.P.V. IBRAHIM, RESIDING AT CC 37/1984-D, STERLING ESTATE, KUMARASANAN ROAD, KALOOR, KOCHI - 682 017. R1&R2 BY ADVS.MR.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASST.SOLICITOR GENERAL BY ADV.MR.JOHN VARGHESE, ASGC, BY ADV.MR.P.M.JOSEPH. R3 BY ADV.MR.A.BALAGOPALAN, MR.V.N.GOPINATHAN, MR.SOJO J.KALLIDUKIL, SMT.KALA G.NAMBIAR. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/02/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.1671/2009 Y APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF LEASE DEED DTD. 11/1/2006. EXT.P2: COPY OF RENEWAL OF APPROVAL DTD. 3/1/2007 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P3: COPY OF APPLICATION FOR RENEWAL DTD. 3/11/2008 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE DEMAND DRAFT FOR RS.2000/- DRAWN IN THE NAME OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 30/12/2008 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT ASKING FOR PRODUCTION OF THE RENEWAL LEASE AGREEMENT. EXT.P6: COPY OF THE EXPLANATION OFFERED BY THE PETITIONER DTD. 5/01/2009. EXT.P7: COPY OF LETTER DTD. 9/01/2009 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT WITHDRAWING THE APPROVAL GRANTED TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P8: COPY OF THE PETITION DTD. 6/03/2008 FILED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT BEFORE THE RENT CONTROL COURT, COCHIN AS RCP NO.3/2008. EXT.P9: COPY OF NOTICE ISSUED BY THE RENT CONTROL COURT, COCHIN IN RCP NO.3/08 TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P10: COPY OF NOTICE DTD. 18/11/2008 ISSUED BY ADVOCATE FOR THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P11: COPY OF REPLY NOTICE DTD. 3/01/2009 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER'S ADVOCATE TO THE ADVOCATE OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES: ANNEXURE R1(A): COPY OF CLAUSE 5.2.2.(A) OF THE DOCUMENT NO.EIC/FFP/ EX.INST./AUGUST/2005 ISSUE.3 DTD. NIL. ANNEXURE R1(B): COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 19/12/2008 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER. /TRUE COPY/ Kss P.A.TO JUDGE ANTONY DOMINIC, J. --------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 1671 of 2009 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 9th day of February, 2009 JUDGMENT Petitioner is a Sea food exporter. By Exhibit P1 lease deed, the petitioner had entered into lease arrangement with the 3rd respondent for the lease of the building and other machineries mentioned therein. On the strength of lease, the respondents 1 and 2 granted approval to the petitioner’s Processing Unit. The approval was thereafter renewed periodically and was valid till 5/1/2009. 2. In terms of scheme which governs the grant of approval, the petitioner submitted Exhibit P3 application for renewal of the approval. Exhibit P4 is the copy of the demand draft, which was enclosed along with Exhibit P3 towards renewal fee payable. On receipt of Exhibits P3 and P4, second respondent issued Exhibit P5 informing that it was mandatory that the petitioner should have produced the renewed lease agreement. On that basis, petitioner was informed that he should submit the lease agreement on or before 5/01/2009. W.P.(C) No. 1671/2009 2 3. On receipt of Exhibit P5, petitioner replied by Exhibit P6 stating that the demand for production of the renewed lease deed is unjustified. He also explained that since his relationship with the landlord is strained, it was not possible to comply with such requirements. Subsequently, the Joint Director of the first respondent issued Exhibit P7, informing that approval granted by the petitioner’s establishment was withdrawn with immediate effect. It is challenging Exhibit P7 and praying for a direction to the second respondent to grant renewal of approval applied for as per Exhibit P3 application, the writ petition has been filed. 4. Statement has been filed on behalf of the respondents 1 and 2. According to them, the grant of approval is based on the Scheme for Approval and Monitoring of Establishments/Factory, Vessels/Freezer Vessels, processing/Storing, Fish and Fishery Products for Export framed by the first respondent. It is stated clause 2 of the scheme provides the procedure for approval of establishments. It is stated that one of the requirements for approval is that the applicant should produce lease deed and a copy of the Registration Certificate issued by MPEDA. It is stated W.P.(C) No. 1671/2009 3 that in so far as the petitioner is concerned, he has not satisfied both these conditions. According to them, it was therefore, that the processing plant could not be granted renewal of approval. 5. The 3rd respondent, landlord, on the other hand submitted that period of lease has expired and that they have initiated steps for eviction of the petitioner from the premises in question on grounds under Section 11(3) of the Buildings Lease and Rent Control Act. 6. I have heard the counsel appearing for the parties. 7. A reading of Exhibit P7 shows that the ground for withdrawal of the approval to the petitioner’s processing plant is the non-production of lease deed. In addition to this, respondents 1 and 2 are now contending that the petitioner does not have a valid approval issued by the M.P.E.D.A. It is true that in terms of the procedure which governs the grant of approval, satisfaction of both these requirements are necessary. 8. However, the petitioner has a case that they are tenant by holding over and are entitled to all the rights and privileges of a tenant. In support of this contention, the counsel W.P.(C) No. 1671/2009 4 for the petitioner relied on a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Marimuthu Vs. Director General of Police [1999(3)K.L.T. 662]. In the judgment referred to above, it has been held that a tenant holding over, like petitioner, is entitled to all the privileges that any other tenant is entitled. If that be so, the production of lease agreement can only apply for the initial grant of approval. In my view, the insistence of the respondent for production of lease deed at the time of renewal, particularly in a case of this nature, is therefore totally unjustified. Therefore, I cannot agree with the demand of the respondent in calling upon the petitioner to produce lease deed as a condition for renewal of the approval granted to the petitioner. 9. Now what remains is the insistence of the respondents for production of the Certificate of Registration granted by the Marine Products Export Development Authority. In terms of the scheme, as per para 2.1.3(f) certificate issued by M.P.E.D.A is a necessary document. Counsel for the petitioner contends that unless approval is granted, M.P.E.D.A will not grant registration. This does not appear to be correct for the reason W.P.(C) No. 1671/2009 5 that the clause 2.1.3(f) itself provides at the time of applying for approval, if an applicant does not have registration issued by the M.P.E.D.A, he need only produce the same before the grant of approval by respondents 1 and 2. Thus though for submitting application for the approval of respondents 1 and 2, M.P.E.D.A registration is not a mandatory requirement, the certificate has to be produced before granting approval. Since, M.P.E.D.A registration is a necessary requirement only for grant of approval, respondents 1 and 2 cannot be faulted for insisting on the same. At the same time, I take note of the fact that when the application dated 3/11/2008 was submitted for renewal of approval before the second respondent, M.P.E.D.A registration that the petitioner had was valid till 5/01/2009. Therefore, if the original application was allowed, this would have stood in the way of the petitioner. 10. Therefore, I direct the respondents 1 and 2 to process the application made by the petitioner for grant of approval and pass orders thereon. This shall be done as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within two weeks of production of copy of W.P.(C) No. 1671/2009 6 this judgment. However, the issue of approval will be only after the petitioner producing the Certificate of Registration from the M.P.E.D.A. It is clarified that this judgment will not, in any manner, affect the rights of the landlord for seeking eviction of the petitioner. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE scm