IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 8TH MARCH 2010 / 17TH PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 7077 of 2010(H) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- M.H.AHAMMED KUNJU, AGED 59, S/O. HYDROSE, MOOKKADA HOUSE, M/S. GOLDEN STAR VENEERS, MUDICKAL P.O., ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.PRAVEEN K. JOY SRI.ADEEP ANWAR SRI.ARJUN S.RAJ RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. VAZHAKALAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH, VAZHAKALAM, REP. BY ITS PRESIDENT. 2. THE SECRETARY, VAZHAKALAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT, VAZHAKALAM. ADV. DR.K.P.SATHEESAN FOR R1-2 SRI.K.K.GOPINATHAN NAIR FOR R1-2 SRI.M.R.JAYAPRASAD FOR R1-2 SRI.P.MOHANDAS (ERNAKULAM) FOR R1-2 SRI.MATHEW SUNNY FOR R1-2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J ------------------- W.P.(C).7077/2010 -------------------- Dated this the 8th day of March, 2010 JUDGMENT Although notice was served on the respondents by special messenger, there is no appearance on their behalf. 2. Insofar as the veneer unit of the petitioner is concerned, he says that his licence is valid till 31.3.2010. According to the petitioner, initially the unit was working with 49 HP motor which was subsequently enhanced by another 35 HP. The enhancement was subject to certain conditions which, according to the petitioner, has been complied with, but that does not appear to be the case of the Panchayat. In view of this, the Panchayat issued Ext.P7, cancelling the entire licence as a result of which, the industry is now closed. 3. Aggrieved by Ext.P7, petitioner has filed Ext.P8 appeal before the Committee of the Panchayat which is pending. Along with the appeal he has also filed Ext.P10 stay petition. Orders are yet to be passed on the appeal and the stay petition. In the meantime, the Industry with 49HP motor is also remaining idle W.P.(C).7077/2010 2 and therefore this writ petition is filed. 4. If as stated by the petitioner, Ext.P8 appeal and Ext.P10 stay petition are pending, there is no reason why the 1st respondent shall not consider the appeal or the stay petition on an expeditious basis. Having regard to the fact that the industry is remaining closed leaving the workmen unemployed, I feel it only appropriate that the Unit should be allowed to function 5. Therefore, I dispose of this writ petition directing the 1st respondent to consider Ext.P8 appeal with notice to the petitioner as expeditiously as possible at any rate within two weeks of production of a copy of this judgment. It is directed that in case, if for some reason it is not possible to consider the appeal itself within the said time limit, Ext.P10 stay petition shall be considered with notice to the petitioner. 6. In the meantime, it is directed that the 1st respondent shall permit the petitioner to operate his industry with 49HP motor based on the licence he possessed. It is made clear that this judgment will not allow the petitioner to operate the unit with the enhanced capacity. W.P.(C).7077/2010 3 Petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment before the 1st respondent for compliance. ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge mrcs