2016 (12) TMI 1732 - HC - Indian Laws

Non consideration of license applications - remittance of fees - Deemed License - Held that - The attempt of the petitioner was to deliberately refuse the registered cover and then claim benefit of the deeming provision. This Court is unable to countenance such a contention - This Court does not find any reason to entertain the writ petition - petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Non-consideration of license applications for a quarry and a crusher, entitlement to deeming provision under Section 236 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, refusal of registered cover, attempt to mislead the court regarding application dates, availability of alternate remedy, applicability of Section 14 of the Limitation Act.

Analysis:
The petitioner was aggrieved by the non-consideration of license applications for a quarry and a crusher. While the quarry application could not proceed due to lack of Environmental Clearance, the petitioner claimed entitlement to the deeming provision under Section 236 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, for the crusher unit application. The respondent Panchayat contended that the petitioner was not eligible for the deeming provision based on a decision taken by the Panchayat and communicated to the petitioner. The petitioner's attempt to claim benefit under the deeming provision was questioned due to the refusal of a registered cover, which was seen as a deliberate act to mislead. The court found no reason to entertain the writ petition, emphasizing that the petitioner's actions did not constitute a bona fide proceeding, thus dismissing the petition without costs.

The petitioner's argument regarding the rejection order referring to a different application date was deemed an attempt to mislead the court. The court highlighted discrepancies in the petitioner's submissions and actions, including the date mentioned in the application and the receipt produced. It was noted that the petitioner's refusal of the communication addressed to him and subsequent claim for benefits under the statute were not in good faith, leading to the dismissal of the writ petition. The court emphasized that the petitioner's actions did not align with the principles of a bona fide proceeding, impacting the availability of alternate remedies subject to the laws of limitation.

In conclusion, the court dismissed the writ petition, emphasizing that the petitioner's deliberate refusal of the registered cover and subsequent attempts to claim benefits under the deeming provision were not in good faith. The court highlighted the importance of adhering to legal principles and acting in good faith when seeking remedies, ultimately leading to the dismissal of the petition without imposing any costs.