Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 17349
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MOHAMMED NIAS C.P., J
MOHAN CHERIYAN – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
WP(C) 16740/2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.M.T.SURESHKUMAR, SMT.MANJUSHA K, SMT.SONA VIJAYAN K
For the Respondents: SMT. SURYA BINOY, SR. GP
A Pollution Testing Centre's license renewal cannot impose new conditions contrary to prior grants.
Headnote:This judgment addresses the legality of the refusal to renew a Pollution Under Control Certificate (PUCC) license. The court reaffirmed that no new conditions can be imposed for renewing existing licenses as established in previous judgments (Paragraph 3). Key considerations included the absence of precise details in the government's denial of the renewal request (Paragraph 4), leading to the directive for reconsideration based on conditions existing at the time of the original grant (Paragraph 5). The ruling concluded with a clear instruction to renew the license if conditions were met.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner challenges license renewal denial based on insufficient grounds. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. no new conditions for licensing renewal as per government submission. (Para 3) |
| 3. court directs reconsideration of renewal application. (Para 4 , 5) |
JUDGMENT
The petitioner was granted a PUCC license for running an Automobile Exhaust Testing Station through Ext.P1, which was initially valid from 17.03.2015 till 17.03.2020. After the expiry of the license on 17.03.2020, the same was again renewed up to 16.03.2025, which is seen from Ext.P1 itself. Ext.P1 authorised to inspect all types of vehicles except heavy vehicles since the parking area provided was only 5.9 m x 3m.
2. When the petitioner applied for renewal afterM 16.03.2025, Ext.P3 order was passed on 05.04.2025, rejecting the request for renewal, stating that the petitioner has only an area of 6.5 m x 2.9 m, which actually is more than what is stated in Ext.P1. That apart, reliance was placed on a circular without mentioning either the date or any details. The circular was issued after the issuance of the license on 17.03.2015.
3. The issue is covered in favour of the petitioner by Ext.P5 judgment , where this court recorded the submission on behalf of the Government, which reads as follows:
“8. The learned Government Pleader doesn't dispute the fact that no new condition can be prescribed for renewal of the existing licences of Pollution Testing Centres. Therefore, the licenses are to be renewed in accordance with the conditions prescribed in the relevant Government Order under which the licences for setting up the Pollution Centres were granted. If the Government Order dated 15.02.1996 had prescribed space for two LMV vehicles, the licences cannot be renewed in respect of Pollution Testing Centres which do not have the parking space for two LMV vehicles.”
4. It is a case of renewal for the second time after the issuance and since it was the Government's stand in Ext.P5 that no new condition can be prescribed for renewal of the existing licenses of Pollution Testing Centres, the reference to an undated circular in Ext.P3 cannot be sustained. Ext.P3 also shows a total lack of application in mind, as no details of the circular, based on which the impugned order was passed, are stated. Under such circumstances, Ext.P3 is to be quashed despite the existence of an alternate remedy.
5. Accordingly, there will be a direction to the third respondent to consider the application for renewal submitted by the petitioner, and if it is found that the parking area stated in Ext.P1 is still available, the license shall be renewed, without reference to any circular issued after 17.03.2015. Orders as directed shall be passed within a month from the receipt of a copy of this judgment. The impugned order is quashed.
The writ petition is allowed as above.
