Kerala High Court
WP(C)/38780/2010 of M.K.PRATHAPAN Vs MULAKULAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH on 31 December 2010
HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN FRIDAY, THE 31ST DECEMBER 2010 / 10TH POUSHA 1932 WP(C).No. 38780 of 2010(V) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- 1. M.K.PRATHAPAN, MOOTHEDATH HOUSE, MEVALLOOR, KOTTAYAM. 2.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN
FRIDAY, THE 31ST DECEMBER 2010 / 10TH POUSHA 1932
WP(C).No. 38780 of 2010(V)
--------------------------
PETITIONER(S):
-----------------------
1. M.K.PRATHAPAN, MOOTHEDATH HOUSE,
MEVALLOOR, KOTTAYAM.
2. C.E.CHACKO, PAPPANASSERIYIL HOUSE,
PERUVA, KARICODE P.O., KOTTAYAM.
BY ADV. SRI.P.P.JACOB
SRI.T.P.GOPAKUMAR
RESPONDENT(S):
-------------------------
1. THE MULAKULAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH,
MULAKULAM P.O., MEVALLOOR, KOTTAYAM, PIN-686609, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
2. THE GEOLOGIST, OFFICE OF THE MINING
AND GEOLOGY, CIVIL STATION, KOTTAYAM-686002.
BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.P.N.SANTHOSH
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 31/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J.----------------------------------W.P.(C)No. 38780 OF 2010---------------------------------------------Dated this the 31[st] day of December, 2010
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
J U D G M E N T
The petitioners are owners of a brick manufacturing unit.According to the petitioners, the work is seasonal in nature andthe season is from October to May. During the present year,because of the rains that continued to be active, the petitionerscould not start their activities in October. They are hoping tocommence their work in January. Though, the petitioners havesubmitted Exts.P3 and P4 applications for the issue of necessarylicenses for conducting their activities, they complain that noorders have been passed thereon by the 2[nd] respondent, till date.It is the case of the petitioners that they have produced all therelevant documents and satisfied all legal requirements for thegrant of the licenses sought for by them. According to thepetitioners, loss and hardship are caused to them by the delay inthe disposal of their applications. Therefore, they pray for theissue of appropriate directions for an early disposal of theirapplications.
2. The learned Government Pleader has no objection inthe matter being directed to be expedited. In the abovecircumstances, this writ petition is disposed of directing the 2[nd]respondent to consider the applications submitted by thepetitioners, evidenced herein by Exts.P3 and P4, provided thesaid applications have been received and are pending and topass appropriate orders thereon in accordance with law asexpeditiously as possible, and at any rate within three weeks ofproduction of a copy of this judgment. The petitioners shallproduce a copy of the writ petition as well as a copy of thisjudgment before the 2[nd] respondent for prompt compliance.
dmb
K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE