IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI TUESDAY, THE 7TH JULY 2009 / 16TH ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 15694 of 2009(F) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- KADINAMKULAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. BY ADV. SRI.S.V.PREMAKUMARAN NAIR SRI.R.T.PRADEEP RESPONDENT(S): --------------- GEETHA O., AGED 45, D/O.SMT.OMANA, PROPRIETRIX, GEETEHANJALI AYURVED MADAM, CHITTATTUMUKKU P.O., RESIDING AT 'VANAMALA' CHITTATTUMUKKU P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. ADDL.R2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, TVM (Impleaded as per order dated 8.6.09 ) ADV. SRI.P.B.SURESH KUMAR FOR R1 SRI.LEO GEORGE FOR R1 SRI.K.P.SUJESH KUMAR FOR R1 SRI.K.N.SASIDHARAN NAIR FOR R1 SMT.SANDHYA RADHAKRISHNAN FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI, J ....................... W.P.(C).15694/2009 ....................... Dated this the 7th day of July, 2009 JUDGMENT 1st respondent applied for renewal of the licence to conduct an Ayurvedic Hospital and Pharmacy under the name and style as 'Geethanjali Ayurveda Madom' situated within the limits of the Panchayat. According to the petitioner/Panchayat, there were reasons which prevented them from renewing the licence on the premise that some members of public had raised an objection with regard to the manner and conduct of the Ayurvedic hospital. They had already moved the District Collector to take action. It seems that in the meanwhile, time for taking a decision on the application for renewal of licence as prescribed by law, had expired and therefore, contending that there is a deemed licence, the licnesee moved the Tribunal, in an appeal challenging the decision taken by the Panchayat Committee, requiring the Secretary not to issue the licence until a report is obtained from the District Collector. Tribunal set the Panchayat ex parte. There is a controversy as to whether W.P.(C).15694/09 2 the Tribunal is right in setting the Panchayat ex parte. Be that as it may, the Tribunal proceeded to allow the appeal vide Ext.P2 order dated 24.9.2008 This has been challenged in this writ petition, filed on 5.6.2009. 2. The licensee has entered appearance before this Court. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the 1st respondent that the writ petition is practically infructuous. The benefit of the deemed licence as ordered by the Tribunal was only upto 31.3.2009 and therefore, the licensee had filed an application for renewal of the licence beyond the period 31.3.2009. The Panchayat rejected the application for renewal of the licence and the same was challenged in an appeal before the Tribunal as Appeal No.234/2009. Tribunal proceeded to allow the appeal and directed that licence should be granted. This order is seen to have been passed on 1.6.2009. 3. I am not satisfied with the explanation as to the non disclosure of these facts in the writ petition filed on 5.6.2009, against Ext.P2 order. W.P.(C).15694/09 3 4. Be that as it may, it is now clear that no purpose will be served in entertaining a challenge against Ext.P2 order at this juncture, since the application for renewal of the licence beyond 31.3.2009, though rejected by the Panchayat, has been directed to be granted by the Tribunal. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. V.GIRI, Judge mrcs