IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 19TH OCTOBER 2011 / 27TH ASWINA 1933 WP(C).No. 25700 of 2011(J) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- P.M.SUMESH, S/O.MADHAVAN, AGED 36 YEARS, PANTHAKKAL HOUSE, THEANGALOOR VILLAGE, DESOM P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.SHOBY K.FRANCIS. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PERAMANGALAM POLICE STATION, PERAMANGALAM P.O., PIN -680 545, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 2. THE GEOLOGIST, DEPARTMENT OF MINING AND GEOLOGY, DISTRICT OFFICE, CHEMBOOKAVU P.O., OPPOSITE TOWN HALL, THRISSUR, PIN- 680 021. R1 & R2 BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT. MAYA. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/10/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C).NO.25700/2011-J: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:- EXHIBIT-P1. TRUE COPY OF THE ORDINARY SAND DEALERS LICENSE ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 20.3.2010. EXHIBIT-P2. TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 2.5.2011. EXHIBIT-P3. TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC NO.15304/2011 DATED 7.6.2011. EXHIBIT-P4. TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.367/2011 DATED 27.4.2011. EXHIBIT-P5. TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT GEOLOGIST DATED 27.4.2011 TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT SUB-INSPECTOR IN NO.3087/C2/TD0/09. EXHIBIT-P6. TRUE COPY OF THE 'RENEWED ORDINARY SAND DEALERS LICENSE ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 27.7.2011. EXHIBIT-P7. TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPODENT DATED 14.7.2011 TO THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT-P8. TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE JFCM COURT, KUNNAMKULAM IN MP NO.2894/2011 DATED 12.8.2011. EXHIBIT-P9. TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 2.8.2011. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:- NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Prv. ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ---------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 25700 OF 2011 ----------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 19th day of October, 2011 J U D G M E N T Petitioner was issued with Ext.P5 license on the strength of which he was working as a Sand Dealer. The period of the license expired on 31.3.2011. According to the petitioner due to the elections, the authorities refused to accept renewal application and therefore finally he had to send Ext.P2 application by post on 2.5.2011. 2. Soon thereafter, he approached this court by filing WPC 15304/11 seeking a direction for the consideration of the representation. Accordingly Ext.P3 judgment was rendered directing that orders shall be passed on the application made by him. 3. In the meanwhile on 27.4.2011, the remaining stock of sand available in the yard of the petitioner was seized by the police on the allegation that the same was stocked without license on that day. As per Ext.P5 the W.P.(C) No. 25700 OF 2011 :2 : Geologist informed the Sub Inspector of Police that the sand in question was the balance quantity of stock by the petitioner on the strength of the license valid till 31.3.2011. 4. Subsequently, orders were passed on Ext.P2 application on 27.7.2011 and Ext.P6 license was granted to the petitioner, with effect from 27.7.2011 till 31.3.2012. Immediately thereafter, petitioner moved Ext.P9 application to the 2nd respondent saying that it was on account of the non acceptance of the application that he had to make a belated request for renewal and it was consequent to that as on 24.7.2011 he had no license. On that basis the petitioner now seeks an order from the 2nd respondent requiring for renewal of the license from 1.4.2011. Orders were not passed on Ext.P9 and therefore the writ petition is filed. W.P.(C) No. 25700 OF 2011 :3 : 5. In my view, it is a matter for the 2nd respondent to consider. Petitioner now seeks retrospective license on the ground that soon after the expiry of Ext.P1 license, though he made an application that was refused to be accepted by the 2nd respondent. Therefore the decision on Ext.P9 will depend upon the truth or otherwise of the allegation of the petitioner and if the 2nd respondent finds the said allegation of the petitioner to be true, necessarily consequential orders will have to be passed. 6. In that view of the matter I dispose of the writ petition directing the 2nd respondent to pass orders on Ext.P9 as expeditiously as possible at any rate within two weeks of production of a copy of this judgment along with a copy of this writ petition. 7. Now, that the petitioner has been given Ext.P6 order by which the license has been granted for 27.7.2011, irrespective of Ext.P4, petitioner should be entitled to W.P.(C) No. 25700 OF 2011 :4 : continue the business on that basis. Thus, taking note of the complaint of the petitioner that in view of Ext.P4 the first respondent is interfering with his business, I direct that on the production of a copy of this judgment, keeping the stock covered by Ext.P4 separate, the petitioner will be permitted to carry on business on the strength of Ext.P6. The writ petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE ul/- [true copy] P.S. to Judge