DASAN PAUL Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER, who is desirous of starting a unit for the sale of river sand, applied for dealer license before the 3rd respondent in terms of Section 48b of Minor Mineral Concession Rules. According to him, the 3rd respondent is refusing to take a decision on the application in the absence of NOC from the panchayat. Petitioner approached the 2nd respondent Panchayat which informed him that the Panchayat has taken a decision not to grant NOC to any dealer who is desirous of conducting a unit for sale of sand imported from Tamil Nadu with valid pass and accordingly petitioner was informed that similar applications have been rejected and petitioner's application is consequently liable to be rejected. Petitioner has approached this Court seeking a direction to the 3rd respondent to consider his application without reference to NOC from the panchayat. He has also challenged the decision taken by the Panchayat.

(2.) A counter affidavit has been filed by the Panchayat affirming exhibit-P5. Learned Government 2 pleader submits that the petitioner has filed an application for a license before the competent authority namely, the 3rd respondent under Rule 48b of the minor Mineral Concession Rules. The same shall be decided, in accordance with law, after hearing the petitioner, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Submission is recorded.

(3.) IF the 3rd respondent rejects the petitioner's application inter alia on the basis of Exhibit-P5, the petitioner will be free to challenge the correctness of Exhibit-P5 also at that point of time. Petitioner will also be free to take up a contention before the 2nd respondent that an NOC from the panchayat is not required for a license and if such a contention is taken, then the 3rd respondent shall decide on the same, after notice to the Panchayat as well. Writ petition is disposed of as above.