M/S Autumn Trees Vs. the State of Kerala - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1141650
CourtKerala High Court
Decided OnMay-22-2014
JudgeHONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR
AppellantM/S Autumn Trees
RespondentThe State of Kerala
Excerpt:
in the high court of kerala at ernakulam present: the honourable mr.justice c.t.ravikumar thursday, the22d day of may20141st jyaishta, 1936 wp(c).no. 7936 of 2014 (n) --------------------------- petitioner: ------------- m/s autumn trees, a registere firm, opposite forest range office, n h-49, devikulam, munnar, represented by its managing partner c.g.yesudas, aged53 s/o.gheevarghese chebakkottukudiyil house, ayyakadu thrikariyur village, thrikariyoor p.o. kothamangalam taluk, ernakulam district. by adv. sri.g.sreekumar (chelur) respondents:- ---------------- 1. the state of kerala, represented by the secretary to the government local self government department government secretariat thiruvananthapuram - 695 001.2. the devikulam grama panchayath, represented by its secretary, mattupetti p.o. idukki district - 685 616.3. binu poulose,, aged35years s/o.c.p.poulose, chebakkottukudiyil house, ayyakadu thrikariyur village, thrikariyoor p.o. kothamangalam taluk, ernakulam district-682 031.4. c.p.poulose, aged64years s/o.paily poulose, chebakkottukudiyil house, ayyakadu thrikkariyur village, thrikkariyoor p.o. kothamangalam taluk, ernakulam district - 682 031. r3 & 4 by adv. sri.s.sreekumar (sr.) r3& 4 by adv. sri.p.martin jose r3 & 4 by adv. sri.p.prijith this writ petition (civil) having come up for admission on2205-2014, the court on the same day delivered the following: wp(c).no. 7936 of 2014 (n) --------------------------- appendix petitioner's exhibits --------------------------- exhibit p1. a true copy of the license issued to the petitioner by the second respondent for the year201314 dated2310.2013. exhibit p2. a true copy of the license issued by the second respondent dated2310.2013. exhibit p3. a true copy of the returns filed by the firm concerning the kerala value added tax act, dated0403.2014. exhibit p4. a true copy of the plaint in os no.75 of2014on the file of the munsiff court, devikulam dated0303.2014. exhibit p5. a true copy of the plaint in os no.79 of2014on the file of the devikulam dated0303.2014. exhibit p6. a true copy of the complaint of the petitioner before the second respondent dated1003.2014. exhibit p7. a true copy of the receipt issued by the second respondent dated1103.2014. respondents' exhibits: ------------------------------ ext.r4(a): true copy of document no.1832 of2013dated78.2013 of devikulam sor. ext.r4(b): true copy of document no.2665 of2013dated1311.2013 of devikulam sro. ext.r4(c): true copy of basic tax receipt dated199.2013. ext.r4(d): true copy of certificate of sanitary arrangement dated133.2014 issued by health inspector to3d respondent. ext.r4(e): true copy of police clearance certificate dated153.2014 issued to3d respondent. ext.r4(f): true copy of ownership certificate issued by panchayat to3d respondent. ext.r4(g): truie copy of licence dated173.2014 issued by panchayath. ext.r4(h): true copy of o.s.no.75 of2014of the munsiff's court, devikulam. wp(c).no. 7936 of 2014 (n) ext.r4(i): true copy of injunction order dated33.2014 in i.a.no.241 of2014 ext.r4(j): true copy of the judgment dated73.2014 in w.p.(c) no.6602/2014. // true copy // tks p.s. to judge c.t.ravikumar, j.------------------------------ w.p.(c)no.7936 of 2014 ------------------------------- dated 22nd may, 2014 judgment this writ petition has been filed mainly with the following prayer: (i) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the 2nd respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner as evidenced by ext.p6 and to direct the 2nd respondent not to renew the licence in continuation of ext.p1, in the interest of justice." it is obvious from the above that the petitioner filed the captioned writ petition seeking for a direction to the second respondent not to renew the licence in continuation of ext.p1. when this matter is taken up for consideration today, the learned counsel appearing for respondents 3 and 4 submitted that the application for renewal of the licence in continuation of ext.p1 was already allowed and the licence was renewed for the year 2014-2015. in such circumstances, without prejudice to the right of the petitioner, if any, to challenge the renewed licence in accordance with law, before the appropriate forum, this writ petition is closed. sd/- c.t.ravikumar judge tks
Judgment:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR THURSDAY, THE22D DAY OF MAY20141ST JYAISHTA, 1936 WP(C).No. 7936 of 2014 (N) --------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------- M/S AUTUMN TREES, A REGISTERE FIRM, OPPOSITE FOREST RANGE OFFICE, N H-49, DEVIKULAM, MUNNAR, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER C.G.YESUDAS, AGED53 S/O.GHEEVARGHESE CHEBAKKOTTUKUDIYIL HOUSE, AYYAKADU THRIKARIYUR VILLAGE, THRIKARIYOOR P.O. KOTHAMANGALAM TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR) RESPONDENTS:- ---------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.

2. THE DEVIKULAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MATTUPETTI P.O. IDUKKI DISTRICT - 685 616.

3. BINU POULOSE,, AGED35YEARS S/O.C.P.POULOSE, CHEBAKKOTTUKUDIYIL HOUSE, AYYAKADU THRIKARIYUR VILLAGE, THRIKARIYOOR P.O. KOTHAMANGALAM TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-682 031.

4. C.P.POULOSE, AGED64YEARS S/O.PAILY POULOSE, CHEBAKKOTTUKUDIYIL HOUSE, AYYAKADU THRIKKARIYUR VILLAGE, THRIKKARIYOOR P.O. KOTHAMANGALAM TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 682 031. R3 & 4 BY ADV. SRI.S.SREEKUMAR (SR.) R3& 4 BY ADV. SRI.P.MARTIN JOSE R3 & 4 BY ADV. SRI.P.PRIJITH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON2205-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 7936 of 2014 (N) --------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS --------------------------- EXHIBIT P1. A TRUE COPY OF THE LICENSE ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR201314 DATED2310.2013. EXHIBIT P2. A TRUE COPY OF THE LICENSE ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT DATED2310.2013. EXHIBIT P3. A TRUE COPY OF THE RETURNS FILED BY THE FIRM CONCERNING THE KERALA VALUE ADDED TAX ACT, DATED0403.2014. EXHIBIT P4. A TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN OS NO.75 OF2014ON THE FILE OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, DEVIKULAM DATED0303.2014. EXHIBIT P5. A TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN OS NO.79 OF2014ON THE FILE OF THE DEVIKULAM DATED0303.2014. EXHIBIT P6. A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT OF THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE SECOND RESPONDENT DATED1003.2014. EXHIBIT P7. A TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT DATED1103.2014. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: ------------------------------ EXT.R4(a): TRUE COPY OF DOCUMENT NO.1832 OF2013DATED78.2013 OF DEVIKULAM SOR. EXT.R4(b): TRUE COPY OF DOCUMENT NO.2665 OF2013DATED1311.2013 OF DEVIKULAM SRO. EXT.R4(c): TRUE COPY OF BASIC TAX RECEIPT DATED199.2013. EXT.R4(d): TRUE COPY OF CERTIFICATE OF SANITARY ARRANGEMENT DATED133.2014 ISSUED BY HEALTH INSPECTOR TO3D RESPONDENT. EXT.R4(e): TRUE COPY OF POLICE CLEARANCE CERTIFICATE DATED153.2014 ISSUED TO3D RESPONDENT. EXT.R4(f): TRUE COPY OF OWNERSHIP CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY PANCHAYAT TO3D RESPONDENT. EXT.R4(g): TRUIE COPY OF LICENCE DATED173.2014 ISSUED BY PANCHAYATH. EXT.R4(h): TRUE COPY OF O.S.NO.75 OF2014OF THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, DEVIKULAM. WP(C).No. 7936 of 2014 (N) EXT.R4(i): TRUE COPY OF INJUNCTION ORDER

DATED33.2014 IN I.A.NO.241 OF2014 EXT.R4(j): TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT

DATED73.2014 IN W.P.(C) NO.6602/2014. // TRUE COPY // TKS P.S. TO JUDGE C.T.RAVIKUMAR, J.

------------------------------ W.P.(C)No.7936 of 2014 ------------------------------- Dated 22nd May, 2014 JUDGMENT

This writ petition has been filed mainly with the following prayer: (i) Issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the 2nd respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner as evidenced by Ext.P6 and to direct the 2nd respondent not to renew the licence in continuation of Ext.P1, in the interest of justice." It is obvious from the above that the petitioner filed the captioned writ petition seeking for a direction to the second respondent not to renew the licence in continuation of Ext.P1. When this matter is taken up for consideration today, the learned counsel appearing for respondents 3 and 4 submitted that the application for renewal of the licence in continuation of Ext.P1 was already allowed and the licence was renewed for the year 2014-2015. In such circumstances, without prejudice to the right of the petitioner, if any, to challenge the renewed licence in accordance with law, before the appropriate forum, this writ petition is closed. Sd/- C.T.RAVIKUMAR Judge TKS