OMANA JAMES Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The 6th respondent in the writ petition is the appellant. The writ petition was filed by the 1st respondent herein challenging Exts. P5 to P7 orders passed by the Lok Ayukta and Ext. P10 order of the District Collector. In Ext. P5 the Lok Ayukta directed the District Collector to consider the application of the appellant for grant of stamp vendor licence, on the basis of the existing Rules and to pass final orders, within a period of one month. In Ext. P6 a further direction was issued to the District Collector to issue licence applied for by the appellant in accordance with the Rules as it stood at the time when the application was filed by the appellant and to report compliance to the Lok Ayukta. Exhibit P7 is yet another order issued by the Lok Ayukta reiterating that the Collector should pass orders within one month. Consequent to the orders passed by the Lok Ayukta, Ext. P10 order was issued by the District Collector directing the District Treasury officer to provide licence to the appellant. The writ petitioner, being the President of an Association representing stamp vendors had challenged Exts. P5 to P10. After analysing various provisions contained in the relevant statute, learned single Judge observed that the Lok Ayukta has no jurisdiction to interfere in the matter, especially on the basis of settled legal precedents, decisions of this court reported in State of Kerala V. Sheela,2009 ILR(Ker) 660 and Ramachandran Master V. Kerala Lok Ayukta, 2006 4 KerLT 166. It was found that the Lok Ayukta has no jurisdiction in the matter and even assuming that it has got jurisdiction, the mandatory direction issued is clearly exceeding the powers vested.

(2.) On merits of the issue, it is evident that the application for stamp vendor licence submitted by the appellant was not considered for the reasons specifically assigned in Ext. R6 (b) letter. The District Collector observed that the Government have issued an order prohibiting issuance of fresh licences, contemplating amendment of the relevant Rules. It is evident that the Rules have been amended subsequently. The direction issued by the Lok Ayukta is to consider the application of the appellant on the basis of the Rules which existed as on the date of the application. It is settled law that mere submission of application or even any delay caused in disposal of application will not confer any right on the appellant to get his application considered on the basis of the Rule existing as on the date of submission of the application. Licence can be issued by any competent authority only with reference to the position of law as existing as on the date considering the application. The law prevailing as on the date of consideration is the application in this case is Ext. P1, the amendment brought to the Rules in the year 2007. The hon'ble Supreme Court in its decision in Howrah Municipal Corporation and others V. Ganges Rope Co. Ltd. and others, 2004 1 SCC 663 and in State of Kerala V. B-Six Holiday Resorts (P) Ltd., 2010 2 JT 660 had reiterated the above position. This court had occasion to consider the above question in a recent decision in Asset Homes Pvt. Ltd. and another V. State of Kerala and another, 2011 2 KerLT 1.

(3.) In view of the legal position remaining settled we are of the considered opinion that the direction issued by the Lok Ayukta to consider the application of the appellant on the basis of the Rule existing as on the date of submission of the application, cannot be sustained.