K J THOMAS Vs. PRINCIPAL AGRICULTURAL OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P9. According to the petitioner, since 1978, in a premises taken on lease from the 2nd respondent, he has been conducting business of selling pesticides on the strength of the licence issued by the Panchayat and the authorities under the Insecticides Rules. In this writ petition, what he complains of is, that on expiry of the period of Ext.P3 licence, when Ext.P4 application for renewal of the licence for the year 2009-10 was submitted, orders were not passed on the application. Thereafter, again he submitted Ext.P6 for licence for the years 2010-12. Thereupon, he was issued Ext.P9 communication informing that for want of consent from the 2nd respondent-the landlord, the application cannot be considered. It is thereupon this writ petition is filed contending that that the consent of the landlord is not a requirement of the Insecticides Rules for grant of licence.

(2.) Learned Government Pleader relied on the provisions of Rule 12 of the Rules to sustain Ext.P9. However, a reading of Rule 12 show that all that the licensing officer is to be satisfied is that the premises in respect of which the licence is to be granted are adequate and equipped with proper storage accommodation for avoiding any hazards for preserving the properties of insecticides. Thus, Rule does not contemplate consent of the landlord, and therefore, Ext.P9 is unsustainable.

(3.) However, counsel for the 2nd respondent landlord submits that the building is a dilapidated one and that the building is not one which satisfies the requirements of Rule 12 for grant of licence. He also submits that eviction proceedings initiated by him is pending consideration of the Rent Control Court. It is also his contention that Ext.P1 licence issued by the Panchayat does not authorise the petitioner to carry on this business and that the petitioner should have obtained necessary licence for engaging in the business of pesticides.