Kerala High Court
Arif vs Khairunnisa on 11 April, 2024
WP(C) No.1610/2024 1/7
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIJU ABRAHAM
Thursday, the 11th day of April 2024 / 22nd Chaithra, 1946
WP(C) NO. 1610 OF 2024 (A)
PETITIONER:
ARIF AGED 30 YEARS S/O LATE M.M.ABDUL RAHIMAN, RESIDING AT F;LAT
NO.G4, RAHUMANIYA APARTMENT, DOOR NO.2D, ADUKKA, MANGALPADY GRAMA
PANCHAYAT, KASARAGOD, , PIN - 671322
RESPONDENTS:
1. KHAIRUNNISA AGED 55 YEARS W/O LATE M.M.ABDUL RAHIMAN RESIDING AT
RAHEEZ MANZIL, MOOSODY UPPALA.P.O,MANJESHWAR TALUK,KASARAGOD
DISTRICT , PIN - 671322
2. MOHAMMED SHERIF AGED 40 YEARS S/O. LATE ABDUL RAHMAN, RESIDING AT
RAHEEZ MANZIL, MOOSODY UPPALA.P.O,MANJESHWAR TALUK, KASARAGOD
DISTRICT, , PIN - 671322
3. ABOOBACKER AGED 38 YEARS S/O. LATE ABDUL RAHMAN, RESIDING AT RAHEEZ,
MOOSODY UPPALA.P.O,MANJESHWAR TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT , PIN -
671322
4. DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER VANASREE COMPLEX, VIDHYANAGAR P.O.,
KASARAGOD , PIN - 671123
Writ petition (civil) praying inter alia that in the circumstances
stated in the affidavit filed along with the WP(C) the High Court be
pleased to stay the illegal running of Badriyath Wood Industries,
functioning in Building No.564 of ward No.XII of Badiadka panchayath,
Kasargod District.
This petition coming on for orders upon perusing the petition and
the affidavit filed in support of WP(C) and upon hearing the arguments of
Ms REENA ABRAHAM, Advocate for the petitioner, Mr JAWAHAR JOSE, Advocate
for the R1 to R3 and of GOVERNMENT PLEADER For R4, the court passed the
following:
WP(C) No.1610/2024 2/7
VIJU ABRAHAM,J
------------------
W.P.(C).Nos.9732 & 1610 of 2024
--------------------------------
Dated this the 11th day of April, 2024
ORDER
The above writ petitions are filed challenging
Ext.P16 order wherein the petitioners were directed
to produce certain documents for renewal of the
existing saw mill licence, which is detailed below:
i. The petitioner ought to have submitted the
application for renewal 3 months prior to the
expiry of Exhibit-P2 license, i.e 3 months prior
to 11-2-2023, which is in the month of November,
2022. As the petitioner has submitted the
application only on 23.1.2024, the same cannot be
considered as per Rule 8(vi) of 2021 Rules.
ii. The petitioner has not submitted the notarized
affidavit of all the legal heirs of the deceased
licensee.
iii. The petitioner has not produced the
ownership certificate in the name of the new
licensee, other than the ownership certificate in
the name of the deceased licensee.
iv. The petitioner has not produced the
possession certificate in the name of the new
licensee, other than that in the name of the Haji
V.K. Aboobacker and 3 others.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner would
submit that the petitioner in WP(C) No.1610 of
2024, is a legal heir of late Abdul Rahiman
objected to the renewal of the license, etc., and
has preferred the said writ petition.
3. When the matter came up for consideration on
an earlier occasion, both sides submitted that
there is a chance for settlement and the matter
was posted before the mediation centre attached to
the Court and that the issue has been settled
between the parties on certain agreed terms.
4. As regard the 1st direction that in Ext.P16
that there is a delay in submitting the
application within time and that an explanation
should be submitted for the delay, petitioner
would submit that necessary affidavit explaining
the delay will be submitted within a period of 10
days from the date of receipt of a copy of the
order. As regard the second direction to produce a
notarized No Objection Certificate in respect of
all the legal heirs mentioned in the legal
heirship certificate, petitioner would submit that
necessary documents in this regard will be
submitted. As regard the 3rd direction to produce
fresh ownership certificate in respect of the
building in question, petitioner would submit
that as per Ext.P8 order produced in WP(C) No.9732
of 2024 issued by the competent civil court in
I.A.No.4 of 2021 in O.S.No.43/2020 the petitioner
is already appointed as authorised signatory for
and to carry on the business of M/S.Badryath Wood
Industries, Badiadka standing in item Nos.2 to 4
of plaint 'A' schedule property. Petitioner would
further submit that in Ext.P6 judgment of the
competent civil court which is produced in WP(C)
No.9732 of 2024 in a suit for partition,
preliminary decree has been passed wherein it is
declared that the late Abdul Rahiman is the owner
of the property and his legal heirs are entitled
to inherit the property as stated in paragraph 6
of the judgment and that the petitioner is one of
the legal heirs and she is entitled to run the
unit and consent letters of all the legal heirs
will be produced before the authority. Petitioner
would further submit that since only a preliminary
decree has been passed declaring the right of the
parties and only in the final decree proceedings,
petitioner will be entitled for physical
possession of the property decreed, after
demarcation of the said property. Petitioner
submits that she will produce the certified copy
of the preliminary decree along with an affidavit
stating that necessary documents in this regard
will be produced after the final decree
proceedings are over. As regards the 4th direction,
since possession certificate is issued in favour
of Haji V.K. Aboobacker, necessary notarized
consent letter will be produced and rent deed if
any, will be produced before the authorities.
Therefore, it is ordered that on submission of
these documents, the request made by the
petitioners for renewal of license shall be
considered by the 1st respondent within a period of
2 months from the date of receipt of a copy of the
order, after affording an opportunity of being
heard to the petitioners and any other affected
parties.
Post on 22.05.2024.
sd/-
VIJU ABRAHAM,
JUDGE
pm
11-04-2024 /True Copy/ Assistant Registrar
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 1610/2024
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE LICENCE DATED 12.02.2018 ISSUED
EARLIER TO SHRI. ABDUL RAHIMAN, THE THEN PROPRIETOR OF
THE SAW MILL
11-04-2024 /True Copy/ Assistant Registrar
