K.A.Kochu Makkar @APPELLANT@Hash Vengola Grama Panchayath And Ors

The third respondent in W.P.(C) No.27237 of 2016 is the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.1422 of 2016. Both the writ petitions were heard and disposed of by a common judgment and the appeals were also posted together for consideration.

We heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, the learned counsel appearing for the party respondents, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Pollution Control Board and also the learned Government Pleader.

Insofar as W.P.(C) No.27237 of 2016, against the judgment of which W.A. No.362 of 2017 is filed, the claim of the writ petitioner/party respondent was that for the year 2016-17, he was entitled to deemed licence under Section 236(3) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act. This was on the basis that he had applied for renewal of the licence for the previous year on 15.07.2016. By the judgment under appeal, the learned single Judge upheld this claim and the writ petition was allowed. This judgment is attacked by the appellant pointing out that for a deemed licence to accrue, the applicant should have a current and valid licence for the immediate previous year. According to him, the writ petitioner/the party respondent did not have valid licence for 2015-16 and therefore, he could not have asserted his entitlement for deemed licence for 2016-17.

To our mind, this issue does not survive to be considered at this distance of time for the reason that the period of licence for the year 2016-17, expired on 31.03.2017 and almost two years have passed thereafter. Therefore, the issue is purely academic and does not deserve to be considered on merits.

We, therefore, close W.A. No.362 of 2017 leaving it open to the appellant to impugn the licence, if any, that is currently obtained by the party respondent in accordance with law.

Insofar as W.A. No.412 of 2017 arising from the judgment in W.P.(C) No.1422 of 2016 is concerned, the said writ petition was filed by the appellant, seeking implementation of Ext.P11 Stop Memo issued by the Panchayat to the party respondent. Insofar as this prayer is concerned, Ext.P12 produced in W.P.(C) No.27237 of 2016 shows that the Panchayat had subsequently withdrawn the Stop Memo. It was, therefore, that the learned single Judge dismissed W.P.(C) No.1422 of 2016. In the light of the fact that the Stop Memo was subsequently withdrawn by the Panchayat itself, the learned single Judge cannot be faulted for dismissing the writ petition. Therefore, W.A. No.412 of 2017 is dismissed.