Ganesh vs The Kollengode Grama Panchayat
2021 Latest Caselaw 8300 Ker

WP(C).No.19421 OF 2013(C)        -1-

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                               PRESENT

            THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

    FRIDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 21ST PHALGUNA, 1942

                      WP(C).No.19421 OF 2013(C)


PETITIONER/S:

                GANESH
                AGED 38 YEARS
                S/O.RAJAN,CHULLIMADA HOUSE,ERIMAYUR.P.O,ALATHUR
                TALUK,PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

                BY ADVS.
                SRI.K.RAMAKUMAR (SR.)
                SRI.S.M.PRASANTH
                SMT.SMITHA GEORGE

RESPONDENT/S:

                THE KOLLENGODE GRAMA PANCHAYAT
                REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,KOLLENGODE
                GRAMAPANCHAYATH,KOLLENGODE.P.O,PALAKKAD-678506.

                R1 BY ADV. SRI.N.ANAND

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
12.03.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C).No.19421 OF 2013(C)              -2-




                                JUDGMENT

Dated this the 12th day of March, 2021

This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking the following

reliefs:-

"i) To declare that the refusal on the part of the respondent to consider and pass orders on the application for licence is in violation of the statutory duties and responsibilities conferred on the respondent under the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act and the fundamental rights guaranteed to the petitioner under Article 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India.

ii) To issue a Writ of Mandamus commanding the respondent to immediately consider Ext. P3 application for licence and issue the licence for filtering and refining the rock sand into M. Sand in a perfectly legal manner forthwith."

2. The subject matter relates to grant of D & O licence to the

petitioner in regard to a unit conducting quarry sand operations.

Obviously, the license in question was for the period 2012-13.

Therefore, at this distance of time, it cannot be visualized that

anything to be adjudicated in the writ petition on the merits of the

matter.

Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed as infructuous leaving

open the liberty of the petitioner to take up the matter if anything

survives to be considered in regard to license for the subsequent years.

Sd/-

SHAJI P.CHALY JUDGE

Eb

///TRUE COPY///

P. A. TO JUDGE

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 P1 TRUE COPY OF POSSESSION CERTIFICATE DATED 15.6.2013 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER,KOLLENGODE VILLAGE.

EXHIBIT P2 P2 TRUE COPY OF AGREEMENT DATED 19.06.2013 BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND ONE SADASIVAN

EXHIBIT P3 P3 TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION DATED 18.6.2013 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE RESPONDENT

EXHIBIT P4 P4 TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.A3.8236/12 DT.22.9.2012 ISSUED BY THE PUDUSSERY GRAMA PANCHAYATH

EXHIBIT P5 P5 TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.A7-1990/12 DT.24.7.2012 ISSUED BY THE PALLASANA GRAMA PANCHAYATH.

EXHIBIT P6 P6 TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.A1-3172/12 DT.16.7.2012 ISSUED BY THE THENKURUSSI GRAMA PANCHAYATH

EXHIBIT P7 P7 TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.A3-16471/12 DT.10.09.2012 ISSUED BY THE NENMARA GRAMA PANCHAYATH

EXHIBIT P8 P8 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DT.10.01.2013 ISSUED BY THE GEOLOGIST,PALAKKAD.