IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD JUNE 2010 / 2ND ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 15614 of 2010(B) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- ALPHONSA.D, W/O.ANTONY VARGHESE, ANTO VILLA, P.O.MYLAPRA, KUMBAZHA NORTH, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.NAGARAJ NARAYANAN MR.RAJAN VELLOTH MR.SAIJO HASSAN MR.A.S.SABU MR.BENOJ C AUGUSTIN MR.PRATHAP PILLAI MR.RAFEEK V.K RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PATHANAMTHITTA. 3. THE TAHSILDAR, KOZHENCHERRY TALUK, KOZHENCHERRY, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. 4. THE DISTRICT TREASURY OFFICER, PATHANAMTHITTA. ADV.MR. P. NARAYANAN – GOVERNMENT PLAEDER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S. SIRI JAGAN, J. ------------------------------ W.P.(C) No.15614 OF 2010 ------------------------------- Dated this the23rd day of JUNE, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner was appointed as a permanent stamp vendor in the Pathanamthitta District vide Ext.P3 proceedings dated 13.09.2002. After the expiry of the term of Ext.P5 licence, despite the application for renewal of licence filed by the petitioner, the same was not considered stating that O.P.No.6470/2003 is pending before this Court, against Ext.P5. This court passed Ext.P6 judgment in that original petition relegating the petitioner therein to the alternate remedy by way of appeal. Thereafter, the petitioner approached the third respondent for renewal of Ext.P5 licence. Pursuant to Ext.P10 judgment of this court and Ext.P11 legal opinion of the Additional Government Pleader, Pathanamthitta, the second respondent, by Ext.P12 proceedings dated 7.11.2009, directed the third respondent to appoint the petitioner as stamp vendor in a W.P.(c)No.15614/10 2 permanent vacancy. Thereafter, the third respondent by Ext.P13 proceedings has issued Ext.P14 licence to the petitioner. When the petitioner approached the fourth respondent for stamps and stamp papers, the fourth respondent refused to issue the same and instead issued Ext.P15 letter to the second respondent requesting to cancel the licence of the petitioner on the ground that the licence could have been renewed only by a committee constituted for the purpose, whereas the District Collector himself has passed orders renewing the licence, which is against the legal provisions. The petitioner, therefore, seeks the following reliefs: “i) issue any appropriate writ, direction or order, calling for the records leading to Exhibit P15 and quash the same as illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction. ii) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order, directing the 4th respondent to implement Exhibit P12 proceedings by providing stamps and stamp papers as mentioned in Exhibit P14 licence, forthwith. 2. I have heard the learned Government Pleader also. The learned Government Pleader would submit that although the authority to grant renewal of the licence is the committee headed by the District Collector, the District Collector granted W.P.(c)No.15614/10 3 renewal on the basis of the legal opinion given by the District Government Pleader, which is a judicial order and unless some superior authority quashes the same, the same is legal and valid. Therefore the fourth respondent cannot refuse to comply with the directions of the District Collector. 3. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. I am at a loss to understand how the District Collector and the District Government Pleader can take a stand contrary to the specific legal provisions for renewal of licence. Admittedly, the authority to grant renewal is the committee headed by the District Collector, who has not considered the question of renewal of the petitioner's licence yet. As such, the order of the District Collector renewing the licence of the petitioner without the committee considering the same is without jurisdiction and nonest. In the above circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of with the following directions: The second respondent shall place the application for renewal of licence submitted by the petitioner before the committee constituted for the purpose of considering renewal of the licence of the petitioner and the committee shall take a W.P.(c)No.15614/10 4 decision on the question as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. I make it clear that I have not considered the matter on merits and it is open to the petitioner to raise all his contentions in support of his claim for renewal of licence, which shall be considered by the committee appropriately. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE acd W.P.(c)No.15614/10 5 W.P.(c)No.15614/10 6