IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 2ND APRIL 2009 / 12TH CHAITHRA 1931 WP(C).No. 10824 of 2009(W) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------ M/S. SYNTHITE INDUSTRIES LTD., AJAY VIHAR, M.G. ROAD, RAVIPURAM, KOCHI-682016, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, GEORGE PAUL, AGED 59, S/O. LATE E.J. PAULSOE, EMBASSERY HOUSE, BANERJEE ROAD, ERNAKULAM - 682 018. BY ADV. SRI.C.T.JOSEPH RESPONDENT(S): ------------------- 1. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, OFFICE OF EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, IRRIGATION DIVISION, COLLECTORATE, ERNAKULAM. 2. CANAL OFFICER, IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT, NEAR BOAT JETTY, ERNAKULAM. 3. V.K. PURUSHAN, AGED 59, S/O.V.S. KRISHNAN, SIVALAYAM, VELIYIL HOUSE, KUMBALAM, ERNAKULAM. GOVT.PLEADER SRI.P.N.SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/04/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 10824 OF 2009 (W) ===================== Dated this the 2nd day of April, 2009 J U D G M E N T Petitioner submits that they have constructed a Five Star Resort at Kumbalam. 2. It is stated that as part of the resort, they have put up two floating structures, in respect of which Exts.P3 and P4 licences were issued by the 2nd respondent in terms of the provisions contained under the Cochin Public Canals and Backwaters Navigation Act (1092). According to the petitioner, in order to carry out certain repairs, they were issued Ext.P5 licence issued under Rule 37 of the Rules specifying the period upto 31/3/2009. 3. Petitioner submits that on 30/3/2009, they were served Ext.P12 requiring them to shift floating structures from the present location. It is stated that even for shifting the floating structure they need a licence as provided under Section 4 of the Act and seeking such licence, they attempted to file Exts.P13 and P13(a) before the 2nd respondent. It is stated that these applications were refused to be accepted and therefore, were WPC 10824/09 :2 : sent by registered post and Ext.P14 is referred to in this context. Counsel submits that unless orders are passed on Exts.P13 and P13(a), it will not be possible for the petitioner to comply with Ext.P12 and therefore the 2nd respondent has to be called upon to pass orders on Exts.P13 and P13(a) keeping in abeyance coercive action in pursuance to Ext.P12 in the meanwhile. 4. I have heard the learned Government Pleader also. 5. Having regard to the facts as stated above, I feel the petitioner is justified in the submissions made. If for shifting the float structures licence is required, petitioner cannot be expected to shift the structures in pursuance to Ext.P12, before orders are passed on Exts.P13 and P13(a). 6. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of with the following directions. (1) That the 2nd respondent shall consider and pass orders on Exts.P13 and P13(a) with notice to the petitioner, and as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within 4 weeks of production of a copy of this judgment. (2) It is directed that in the meanwhile and until orders are WPC 10824/09 :3 : passed and communicated to the petitioner, coercive action pursuant to Ext.P12 shall be kept in abeyance. (3) Petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment before the 2nd respondent for compliance. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp