LAWS(KER)-2019-1-103

BAVAKUNJU, S/O KOCHADIMA Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM

Decided On January 22, 2019
Bavakunju, S/O Kochadima Appellant
V/S
DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking a writ of mandamus, directing the 3rd respondent Municipality to renew the licence of the petitioner to a limited period to utilize the clay that is already stored in the yard of the petitioner, in terms of Exts.P10 and P11 dealers licence and the remittance made by the petitioner dated 07.09.2015, respectively. Brief material facts for the disposal of the writ petition are as follows:

(2.) Petitioner was manufacturing bricks in his property situate in Survey No.553/4A of Piravom Village from 1997 onwards, securing all relevant and necessary licence and permission from the respondents and other authorities. The Piravom Grama Panchayat has issued Ext.P15 licence for conducting the manufacturing process, which expired on 31.03.2016. Later, the Panchayat was converted as a Municipality. Petitioner has also secured Ext.P10 dealers licence to sell and exhibit for the sale of minor mineral from the Department of Mining and Geology, a quantity of 4,000 metric tonnes brick clay, and paid Rs.70,000/- towards royalty through Ext.P11. According to the petitioner, due to unavoidable reason, petitioner could not conduct brick manufacturing during the period 2017-18. Thereby, petitioner approached the local body for getting licence for manufacturing bricks in his property to the limited extent of using the clay already stored in accordance with Exts.P10 and P11. Case of the petitioner is that, under similar circumstances, as per Exts.P20 and P21 judgments of this Court, permission was granted to manufacture bricks using the clay remaining. It is also pointed out that, the Kerala State Pollution Control Board has renewed the consent valid up to 26.06.2021, which indicates that, there is no hazardous impact to the environment. These are the basic background facts projected by the petitioner to secure the reliefs specified above.

(3.) A detailed counter affidavit is filed by the 3rd respondent, refuting the allegations and claims and demands raised by the petitioner. Among other contentions, it is stated that, after 31.03.2016, petitioner has not conducted any manufacturing operations, and there is no licence for the petitioner and necessary permission from the Mining and Geology Department. Exts.P1 and P2, according to the 3rd respondent, have no application at this point of time. The ordinary earth mentioned therein have already been used. All the permissions and clearances accordingly granted by the respective statutory authorities have been expired.