IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 4TH APRIL 2008 / 15TH CHAITHRA 1930 WP(C).No. 10157 of 2008(H) -------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------- K. ABOOBACKER ALIAS BAPU KUNDURUMMEL HOUSE, NELLISSERY SUKAPURAM P.O., VIA.EDAPAL, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT BY ADV. SRI.T.KRISHNAN UNNI (SR.) RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. THE SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF LOCAL ADMINISTRATION THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MALAPPURAM. 3. TAHSILDAR, PONANI. 4. N.V.ABDU REHIMAN, N.V. HOUSE KAKKIDICKAL, PANTHAVOOR, ALANKODE P.O. MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY GOVT.PLEADER SRI.I.V.PRAMOD THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/04/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. =============== W.P.(C) NO. 10157 OF 2008 H ==================== Dated this the 4th day of April, 2008 J U D G M E N T The prayers sought for in this writ petition are to quash Exts. P4 and P5. Petitioner claims to be the president of a charitable trust. He filed an application for issue of a licence for establishing a burial ground in Vattamkulam village. According to the petitioner, initially by Ext.P1, the licence was granted. Against Ext.P1, appeal was filed and the matter was remanded to the District Collector for reconsideration as per Ext.P2 order. On remand, the matter was reconsidered by the 2nd respondent, who by Ext.P3 order cancelled Ext.P1 order . Since the order was adverse to him, petitioner carried the matter in appeal and the appeal was rejected by Ext.P5. It is in this background this writ petition has been filed. 2. One of the contentions that has been raised by the counsel for the petitioner is that being an applicant for licence, the petitioner ought to have been heard. I am not impressed by this argument. The reason is that, that was not a ground urged when appeal that was filed against Ext.P3 was considered. Secondly, it is also on record that the petitioner has ceased to be the president of the charitable society, which had made WPC 10157/08 :2 : the application. Admittedly, the petitioner filed the application in his capacity as President and once he has ceased to be in office, his successor alone can claim a right to be heard. Therefore, I am not impressed by the submission made. 3. A reading of Ext.P5 shows that the entire factual issues have been appreciated by the Appellate Authority. It has been found that there was a split in the organization and petitioner is only heading one of the factions. The other faction has produced documents to show that the objects of the trust does not include maintenance of a burial ground. These factual findings cannot be upset in a proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In view of the above, I do not find any illegality in Exts. P3 or P5. Writ petition is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC,JUDGE. Rp