IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 6TH AUGUST 2009 / 15TH SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 18957 of 2009(L) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- MUHAMMED ASHRAF, THEKKEMOODAMPADYEL, MUTHUKULAM NORTH, CHAPPAD P.O. BY ADVS. MR.K.HARILAL, MR. R. GOPAN, MR. SANDEEP. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. MUTHUKULAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. SECRETARY, MUTHUKULAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT. R1 & R2 BY ADV. MR.N.UNNIKRISHNAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/08/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.18957/2009-L: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE LICENCE DTD. 11/12/1991 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT PANCHAYATH. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE LICENCE DTD. 21/11/2005 FOR THE YEAR 2005-2006 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT PANCHAYAT. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE NO.A 25/09 DT.D 30/06/2009 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT PANCHAYAT. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE EXPLANATION DTD. 1/7/2009 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE RESPONDENT PANCHAYAT. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE NOTICE DTD. 30/06/2009 ISSUED BY THE R.2. TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P.6: COPY OF THE RECEIPT DTD. 01/07/2009 FOR THE PAYMENT OF RS.3,000/- ISSUED BY RESPONDENT PANCHAYAT. EXT.P.7: COPY OF THE APPLICATION DTD 1/7/2009 SUBMITTED FOR RENEWAL OF LICENCE BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P.8: COPY OF THE RECEIPT DTD. 1/7/2009 REFERRING ACCEPTANCE OF THE APPLICATION FOR RENEWAL. EXT.P.9: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD 1/7/2009 ISSUED BY R.2. TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P.10: COPY OF THE LICENCE ISSUED BY THE R.2. DTD. 19/08/1998 TO RUN THE SAW MILL WITH 32 HP MOTOR. EXT.P.11: COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT STATING RECEIPT OF THE APPLICATION DTD. 13/07/2009. EXT.P.12: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 13/07/2009 SENT BY THE R.2. TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P.13: COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR RENEWAL OF LICENCE DTD. 09/07/2009 AND RETURNED BY THE R.2. EXT.P.14: COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE FOREST HEAD QUARTERS DTD. 09/07/2009 TO THE PETITIONER SHOWING THE RECEIPT OF APPLICATION FOR NO OBJECTION CERTIFICATE. W.P.(C). NO.18957/2009-L: RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: EXT.R2.A: COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE NO. A3-25/09 DTD. 30/06/09. EXT.R2.B: COPY OF THE STOP MEMO NO. A3-25/07 DTD. 30/06/09. EXT.R2.C: COPY OF THE LETTER NO. A3-25/09 DTD. 30/06/2009. EXT.R2.D: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD 01/07/2009 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.R2.E: COPY OF THE LETTER NO. A3-25/09 DTD. 01/07/09. EXT.R2.F: COPY OF THE NOTICE DTD. 02/07/2009 ISSUED BY ADV. SHANKARAN NAMBOOTHIRI. EXT.R2.G: COPY OF THE LETTER NO. A3-25/2009 DTD. 03/07/2009. EXT.R2.H: COPY OF THE NOTICE NO. A3.25/09 DTD. 1/7/2009. EXT.R2.I: COPY OF THE LETTER NO. A3-25/09 DTD. 03/07/2009 TO THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KANAKAKUNNU, KAYAMKULAM CIRCLE. EXT.R2.J: COPY OF THE INSTRUCTION ISSUED BY KILA. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. Prv. THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P(C).No.18957 OF 2009 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 6th day of August, 2009 JUDGMENT The petitioner had been conducting a saw mill. Admittedly, the licence was not renewed for more than three years. However, it was found that he had been continuing the activity. The Panchayat raised objections and wanted him to pay Rs.3,000/- as fine for carrying on the activity without licence. The petitioner paid it. When the Panchayat notified him of that decision, it was stated that if such amount is not paid, further action will follow. When fine is imposed and demand is raised for payment thereof, the further action that could follow on non- payment of fine is essentially, proceedings for recovery of the same. The payment of fine is not a curative process by which the absence of licence will stand rectified. The petitioner has necessarily to obtain either renewal of the licence or fresh licence as may be called for on the facts of the case. The petitioner states today, through his counsel, that his application for renewal of licence has been rejected after the institution of WPC.18957/09 Page numbers this writ petition. The mixed questions of facts placed before me for consideration in this writ petition, the counter affidavit, the reply affidavit, the additional counter affidavit and also in those materials that are sought to be brought on record by the petitioners as per his request made in I.A.No.9915/09 to call for records, do not generate the situation for adjudication in writ jurisdiction. This is all the more so because even the application of the petitioner for renewal of licence has been rejected. Whatever be the grounds of rejection of that application, the petitioner cannot continue with the activity unless he obtains licence either on a fresh application or renewal of licence. As regards his application for renewal which has been rejected, he has alternate remedy before the statutory authorities, including the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions. This writ petition is, hence, dismissed without prejudice to the petitioner's right to seek relief in accordance with law under the statutory provisions. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, Judge. kkb.7/8.