IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 12TH JULY 2011 / 21ST ASHADHA 1933 RP.No. 508 of 2011(H) --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.16076/2011 Dated 28/06/2011 .................... PETITIONER(S): RESPONDENTS 3 TO 5: ----------------------------------------------------------- 1. M/S. PERINGATTU AGENCIES,DOOR NO.XVII/431, N.H.BYE PASS, ALUVA - 683 101, REP. BY ITS PARTNER V.K.ABDUL RAHIMAN. 2. V.K.ABDUL RAHIMAN, PARTNER, M/S, PERINGATTU AGENCIES, DOOR NO.XVII/431, NH BYE PASS, ALUVA - 683 101. 3. S.SANKARA IYER, PARTNER, M/S. PERINGATTU AGENCIES, DOOR NO.XVII/431, NH BYE PASS, ALUVA - 683 101. BY SRI.P.RAVINDRAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE, BY ADV. SRI.T.H.ABDUL AZEEZ, SMT.APARNA RAJAN. RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER AND RESPONDENTS 1, 2 AND 6: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. M/S. WHEELS MOTORS, “KHADER CENTRE”, DOOR NO.XVII/429, N.H.BYE PASS, NEAR OLD RTO, ALUVA 683 101, REP.BY ITS PARTNER MRS.LAKSHMI NANDAKUMAR. 2. ALUVA MUNICIPALITY, MUNICIPAL OFFICE, PUMP JUNCTION, ALUVA - 684 101, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY. 3. KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, REGIONAL OFFICE, GANDHI NAGAR, COCHIN - 682 020, REP. BY CHIEF ENVIRONMENT ENGINEER. 4. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ALUVA POLICE STATION, ALUVA. R1 BY ADV. SRI. DINESH R.SHENOY R2 BY ADV. SRI. V.M.KURIAN R3 BY ADV. SRI. M.K.CHANDRAMOHAN DAS, SC, PCB R4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. SMITHA SUKUMAR THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss RP.NO.508/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES: ANNEX.A: COPY OF THE RECEIPT ACKNOWLEDGING RECEIPT OF MONEY FOR LICENSE FEE. ANNEX.B: COPY OF THE RECEIPT ACKNOWLEDGING RECEIPT OF MONEY FOR LICENSE FEE. ANNEX.C: COPY OF THE RECEIPT OF APPLICATION UNDER THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT. ANNEX.D: COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE MUNSIFF COURT DTD.20/04/2011. ANNEX.E: COPY OF THE DIRECTIONS ISSUED BY THE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD DTD. 18/04/2011. ANNEX.F: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 29/06/2011. RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO JUDGE Kss C.T.RAVIKUMAR, J. ---------------------------- R.P.No.508 of 2011 in W.P.(C)No.16076 of 2011 ---------------------------- Dated 12th July, 2011 ORDER Respondents 3 to 5 in the writ petition are the review petitioners. This review petition is directed against the interim order passed by this Court on 28.6.2011 in W.P.(C)No.16076 of 2011. The contention of the review petitioners is that they have been conducting the business in question for the past 15 years or thereabouts and by virtue of the deeming provision under section 447 of the Kerala Municipality Act (for short `the Act') a right has been accrued by them. In the light of the said position, the respondents in the review petition cannot be heard to contend that the cement godown in question is functioning without any valid licence, it is further contended. It is also contended that the only licence required for establishing and operating the business in question is a licence under section 447 of the Act and that on the strength of the deeming provision under section 447 of the Act it cannot be said that the review petitioners are not possessing such a licence required under section 447 of the Act. As regards the allegation regarding pollution caused on account of its functioning, highlighted by the writ petitioners, it is contended that it is raised without any basis. This Court, as per the interim order dated R.P.508/2011 in WP(C).No.16076/2011 2 28.6.2011, which is sought to be reviewed, only directed the respondent authorities to ensure that respondents 3 to 5 viz., the review petitioners, are not conducting the business thereon till they are obtaining valid licence and consent from the concerned authorities, in case it is functioning without a valid licence issued by the first respondent Municipality as also consent from the second respondent. Even now, the review petitioners do not have a case that they obtained consent to operate from the Pollution Control Board. Pursuant to the said interim order the Secretary of the first respondent Municipality has issued Annexure F order dated 29.6.2011 restraining the review petitioners from carrying on the business. The review petitioners are aggrieved by Annexure F order issued pursuant to the interim order dated 28.6.2011. 2. The learned standing counsel for the third respondent submitted that hitherto, consent to establish and consent to operate were not given to the review petitioners in respect of the cement godown in question. This Court only directed the respondent authorities to ensure that respondents 3 to 5 are not conducting the business without valid licence and consent from the concerned authorities. As already noticed hereinbefore, the grievance of the review petitioners at present is against Annexure F dated 21.6.2011. According to them, the R.P.508/2011 in WP(C).No.16076/2011 3 Municipality is not justified in taking the stand that the business is being conducted without valid licence. To substantiate the same the review petitioners have produced Annexures A, B and C. I do not think that this Court should consider the said question in this review petition. Evidently, the review petitioners have not brought out the error apparent on the face of records warranting interference with the interim order dated 28.6.2011. Whether the review petitioners are entitled to any relief on the strength of deemed licence by virtue of the provisions under section 447 of the Act is a matter to be agitated by them in appropriate proceedings. In case the review petitioners are aggrieved by Annexure F order it will be open to them to challenge it in appropriate proceedings. The review petition is disposed of accordingly. Post the writ petition before the appropriate court as per roster. Sd/- C.T.RAVIKUMAR Judge TKS