ROY Vs. AYAVANA GRAMA PANCHAYAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Briefly stated, the petitioner is said to have run a stone quarry for the past 23 years, the last valid period of licence being till 2011-2012. In course of time, the second respondent, the Secretary of the first respondent Grama Panchayat, issued Exhibit P4 notice to the petitioner to close down the quarry on the ground that there had been erosion of soil. It appears that, apart from the petitioner's quarry, the neighbouring quarry was also closed under a similar direction.

(2.) Aggrieved by Exhibit P4 direction issued by the second respondent, though the petitioner filed a statutory Appeal No. 630/2012 before the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions, Thiruvananthapuram, the appeal eventually was dismissed on 07.05.2013. Further aggrieved, when the petitioner filed W.P. (C) No. 13539/2013, this Court disposed of the writ petition through Exhibit P9 judgment directing the second respondent to consider the petitioner's application untrammeled by any of the observations made in the previous proceedings between the parties.

(3.) Pursuant to the direction of this Court in Exhibit P9 judgment, the petitioner is said to have submitted Exhibit P10 application before the second respondent. After issuing notice under Exhibit P11 for hearing and also after receiving Exhibit P12 argument note submitted by the petitioner, the second respondent eventually passed Exhibit P13 order rejecting the petitioner's for renewal of licence. Assailing Exhibit P13, the petitioner filed the present writ petition.