N ANIRUDHAN Vs. DISTRICT ENVIRONMENT ENGINEER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Counsel for the Panchayat would submit that all the licences which had been issued to the 4th respondent have now been cancelled by the Panchayat.

(2.) Mr.T.Ramprasad Unni, counsel for the petitioner would refer to the order dated 30.1.2006 passed by this Court which order was passed after hearing all parties. That order, counsel submitted, restrains the 4th respondent absolutely from carrying on any activity at all. Counsel further submitted that in view of the subsequent event of cancellation of all licences issued to the 4th respondent, this Court will be justified in closing the Writ Petition for that reason.

(3.) Counsel for the 4th respondent would submit that the reason for cancellation of the licences which the 4th respondent was having from the Panchayat all these years was only the interim order dated 30.1.2006. The said interim order, counsel submitted, was passed due to the reason that the appeal preferred before the Tribunal was dismissed by the Tribunal. The appeal preferred before the Tribunal pertained only to the licence relating to chilly powder unit. But what the Panchayat has done is to cancel the licences relating to oil mill and rice mill also.