IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID THURSDAY, THE 22ND DECEMBER 2011 / 1ST POUSHA 1933 WP(C).No. 34699 of 2011(J) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER : -------------------- K.V. POULOSE, AGED 52 YEARS, S/O. VAREETH, KARUMATHY VEEDU, SREEMOOLANGARAM.P.O, ALUVA TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 683 580. BY ADV. SRI.K.S.RAJEEV (ALUVA) RESPONDENT : ---------------------- SREEMOOLANAGARAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, ALUVA TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 683 580. BY SRI.BABU KARUKAPADATH, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: RKM -2- WPC.NO.34699/2011(J) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS : P1 : COPY OF DEALERS LICENSE ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER. P2 : COPY OF LICENSE ISSUED FROM POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD TO THE PETITIONER. P3 : COPY OF APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER FOR LICENSE TO MANUFACTURE BRICKS DATED 22.10.2011. P4 : COPY OF LETTER ISSUED BY THE PANCHAYAT REJECTING EXT.P3 APPLICATION DATED 27.10.2011. P5 : COPY OF JUDGMENT IN WRIT PETITION NO.33061/10 OF HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS : NIL /TRUE COPY/ PA TO JUDGE RKM HARUN-UL-RASHID, J. --------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 34699 of 2011 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of December 2011. JUDGMENT Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing counsel for the respondents. Learned Standing Counsel takes notice for the respondents. 2. The writ petition is filed for a direction commanding the respondent to issue licence to the petitioner for manufacturing bricks in his brick kiln on the basis of Ext.P3 application or on the basis of fresh application to be filed by the petitioner considering Ext.P5 judgment. 3. Petitioner submitted Ext.P3 application for no objection certificate for manufacturing bricks. Ext.P3 application is rejected by Ext.P4 communication stating that the applicant failed to renew the licence for the year 2010-11. Similar issue was considered by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 33061/2010. This Court on the similar facts and W.P.(C) No.34699/2011 2 circumstances set aside the order rejecting the application and issued directions to the same Panchayat to consider and pass appropriate orders on the application in accordance with law. This court observed that the Panchayat is the authority competent to issue licence and therefore, when that authority is called upon to exercise the power, it is the bounden duty of the Panchayat to consider the entitlement independently. 4.In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, Ext.P4 communication is quashed and a direction is issued to the respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P3 application afresh within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. The writ petition is disposed of as above. HARUN-UL-RASHID JUDGE al