AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
4 paragraphs · 232 wordsDr. Kauser Edappagath, J
The petitioner is a private limited company engaged in mining of granites. The quarrying permit issued to the petitioner has expired. Thereafter, the petitioner filed Ext.P2 application for quarrying lease. The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondents are not processing the application alleging that there are certain allegations in the quarrying activities of M/s Philips Grano Products, a proprietary concern of the petitioner and Ext.P12 demand notice was issued to the proprietary concern of the petitioner. It is in these circumstances, the petitioner has approached this Court to give a direction to the respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P2 application notwithstanding Ext.P12 demand notice.
I have heard Sri. P. Haridas, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt. Deepa V., the learned Government Pleader.
As stated already, the grievance of the petitioner is that the respondents are not considering and passing orders on Ext.P2 application due to Ext.P12 demand notice issued by the 3rd respondent. Ext.P12 demand notice was under challenge in W.P.(C).No.31293/2022. The said writ petition has been disposed of today by setting aside Ext.P16 (Ext.P12 in this case) demand notice. Hence, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider and pass orders on Ext.P2 application in accordance with law, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.