IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 25TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 6TH PHALGUNA 1930 WP(C).No. 6035 of 2009(Y) -------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- SIBY DAVID, AGED 38 YEARS, W/O. DAVID CHACKO, PROPRIETOR, SIBY BRICKS CHEMPAKAPARAMBIL HOUSE, KARIKODE P.O., PERUVA VIA KOTTAYAM DIST. BY ADV. SRI.ALIAS M.CHERIAN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------- 1. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, KOTTAYAM. 2. VILLAGE OFFICER, VILLAGE OFFICE, MULLAKKULAM VAIKOM TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 3. SECRETARY, MULAKKULAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH, PERUVA P.O., KOTTAYAM DIST. GOVT.PLEADER SRI.P.N.SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/02/2009, ALONG WITH WPC NO.6036/09, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ============== W.P.(C) NOs. 6035 & 6036 OF 2009 (Y) ========================= Dated this the 25th day of February, 2009 J U D G M E N T In these writ petitions, petitioners are aggrieved by Exts.P10 and P8 respectively, which are stop memos issued by the Village Officer, Mulakkulam, the 2nd respondent in these writ petitions. 2. Petitioners are brick manufacturers. According to them, they are continuing manufacturing activities on the strength of licences which they have obtained. It is stated that ignoring the fact that they have all the licences required, acting upon the direction issued by the 1st respondent, the 2nd respondent has issued stop memos on the assumption that the petitioners do not possess any licence justifying their business. It is stated that in view of the erroneous basis on which the stop memos are issued, these orders are liable to be set aside by this Court and the petitioners are entitled to continue the business. 3. A reading of Exts.P10 and P8 stop memos referred to above itself show that this have been issued on the basis that the petitioners do not have the licences which are required to be obtained. 4. Taking into account the above and also the case of the petitioners that they have all the required licences, I direct that it will be WPC 6035 & 6036/09 :2 : open to the petitioners to produce their licences before the 1st respondent, in which case, the 1st respondent shall examine the matter and if he is satisfied that the petitioners do possess the licences as asserted by them, they will be permitted to resume their brick manufacturing and marketing activities. Petitioner may produce a copy of this judgment before the 1st respondent, who shall thereupon examine the licences possessed by the petitioners and pass orders as indicated above. This shall be done without any delay in the matter. 5. Counsel for the petitioners then referred to Ext.P4 in WP(C) No.6035/09 and Ext.P3 in WP(C) No.6036/09. According to him, although they have made applications for renewal of licence to the 3rd respondent Panchayat as early as on 2/9/2008, the 3rd respondent has not passed any orders thereon. Petitioners therefore contend that since orders have not been passed within 30 days as mandated in Section 236(3) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, they are entitled to have deemed licence. 6. In view of the pendency of the applications as above, it is directed that the Panchayat shall on the production of a copy of this judgment pass orders on Exts.P4 and P3 renewal applications made by the petitioners. WPC 6035 & 6036/09 :3 : Petitioners may produce a copy of this judgment before the respondents 1 and 3 for compliance. Writ petitions are disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp