PRABHULLA K. Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant/petitioner was the holder of a stamp vendor's licence issued by the third respondent. While continuing so, she applied for leave, which is said to have been granted for one year with effect from 1.11.1999. Even before expiry of the one year, she submitted an application dated 27.1.2000 before the third respondent for renewal of her licence. The appellant's contention is that nothing has been done on the application for renewal of licence. The appellant, hence, was before the learned Single Judge with the Writ Petition, the judgment in which is impugned herein.

(2.) The learned single Judge found that admittedly, even going by Exhibit P9 representation of the appellant, the application submitted by her was rejected as per item No.9 referred to in the representation. The appellant, having not chosen to challenge the said order, the learned single Judge refused to exercise the discretionary power conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) Before us, the learned counsel for the appellant would strenuously urge that the learned single Judge, having clearly found that the application was submitted on 22.4.2000, admittedly before the last date prescribed, i.e., 31.12.2000, ought to have directed consideration of the application. It was also contended that the order referred to as item No.9 in Exhibit P9 representation was obviously a mistake and there was no such order. We are unable to take into consideration the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant that the reference to an order based on her application was a mistake, since that was a clear admission, which was not controverted before the learned single Judge.