IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE MONDAY, THE 4TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 15TH MAGHA 1929 WP(C).No. 1706 of 2008(C) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ CHANGANACHERRY METAL AND ALLIED INDUSTRIES CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD., NO. IND (K) 71, INDUSTRIAL ESTATE P.O., CHANGANASSERRY-REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. BY ADV. SRI.JOHN VARGHESE SRI.P.M.JOSEPH RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE VAZHAPPALLY GRAMA PANCHAYATH, VAZHAPPALLY P.O., CHANGANACHERRY, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE SECRETARY, VAZHAPPALLY GRAMA PANCHAYATH, VAZHAPPALLY P.O., CHANGANACHERRY. BY ADV. SRI.T.R.HARIKUMAR SRI.V.G.ARUN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON ON 04/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, J. ---------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO.1706 of 2008 ---------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of February , 2008 JUDGMENT Obviously, the petitioner in this case is the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.62/2008 and the respondents are the same as the respondents in that case. In fact, it was common arguments which were addressed by the learned counsel in this case as well as in W.P. (C) No.62/2008. Under challenge in this Writ Petition is Ext.P29 order issued by the Panchayat. The petitioner challenges Ext.P29 on the ground that even before the Writ Petition came up for admission, Ext.P29 had been implemented by the Panchayat and the three units, which were subject matter in this Writ Petition viz. Carpentry unit, lorry workshop and welding unit had been closed down by the Panchayat, not withstanding the pendency of applications for licence before the Panchayat. 2. I find some merits in the submissions of Sri. John Varghese the learned counsel for the petitioner that even as the Panchayat issued Ext.P29, applications for licence Exts.P25, P26 and P27 WPC No.1706/2008 2 submitted by the petitioner society were pending before the Panchayat. Justification of the Panchayat for ignoring those licence applications is that Ext.P14 order of the Tribunal did not pertain to these three units, but pertained only to the saw mill unit. But, the fact remains that Exts.25,26 and 27 were pending before the Panchayat. One of the prominent reasons on which the Panchayat became inclined to issue Ext.P13 order is pendency of W.P.(C) N0.15473/2006 and the circumstance that the Panchayat had got itself impleaded as a party to that Writ Petition. W.P.(C)No.15473/2006 is the Writ Petition wherein the petitioner society challenges the order of the Government cancelling the Kuthakappattom lease which had been given by the Government in respect of the premises where all these four units are conducted. It is not in dispute that this court by an interim order in that Writ Petition had stayed the Government Order cancelling the Kuthakappattom lease. According to Sri. John Varghese, altogether 50 workers who are all members of the petitioner society have been rendered jobless because of the closure of the units. 3. Sri.T.R. Harikumar, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Panchayat, is technically right in submitting that going by WPC No.1706/2008 3 the documents produced, it is not the Society which is actually conducting these four units. It appears to me that the petitioner society itself through medium of four individuals who are members of the society is conducting the unit. Therefore, the Panchayat, in my opinion, should consider the applications for licence (Ext.P25, P26 and P27) and I am inclined to direct the Panchayat to consider those licence applications. It is not seriously in dispute that these units have been conducted during the past two decades without obtaining any licence from the Panchayat. By a rough estimate, I calculate the arrears of licence fee payable for each other unit at Rs.10,000/-. The direction regarding the consideration of the licence applications shall be conditional upon the applicants in Exts. P25, P26 and P27 remitting with the Panchayat a sum of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand) each towards arrears of licence fee within three weeks from today. Once the remittance of arrears determined as above is made by those applicants, the Panchayat will immediately take up the licence applications Exts.P25, P26 and P27, process the same and will dispose of the same in accordance with law at the Panchayat's earliest. The Panchayat will consider the applications and pass final orders on the same within one month of the petitioner remitting the arrears of licence fee quantified as above. If the Panchayat is of the view that WPC No.1706/2008 4 further documents are to be produced by the petitioner for enabling the Panchayat to consider the licence applications, direction in that regard shall be given by the Panchayat within one week of the petitioner remitting the arrears. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, JUDGE. dpk