Quashed

Amity Rock Products (P0 Ltd. v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC20 Aug 2014WP(C)/7915/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court quashed an order by the State Government cancelling a crusher unit licence issued by a Panchayat. The cancellation was based on a 2007 report alleging violations without providing notice or a hearing to the licensee, violating principles of natural justice.

What did the court decide?

Interim stay order and the quashing order directing cancellation of the licence (Ext.P5) are overturned.

Amity Rock Products (P0 Ltd. Vs State of Kerala — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Kerala HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA WEDNESDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF AUGUST 2014/29TH SRAVANA, 1936 WP(C).No. 7915 of 2009 (H) ---------------------------

¶4

PETITIONER: ----------M/S.AMITY ROCKS PRODUCTS (PVT) LTD., CHUNKAPPARA, PATHANAMTHITTA, REP.BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR K.J.PAUL, S/O.K.V.JOSEPH AGED 45. BY ADVS.SRI.SIBY MATHEW SRI.B.PREMNATH (E) SRI.PHILIP J.VETTICKATTU RESPONDENT(S): ------------1. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY LOCAL ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT, (RC), SECRETARIAT TRIVANDRUM. 2. KOTTANGAL GRAMA PANCHAYAT, KULATHOOR P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA REP.BY ITS SECRETARY. R,R2 BY ADV. SRI.T.S.JOHN R BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI P.K.ABDUL REHIMAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20-08-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶5

WP(C).No. 7915 of 2009 (H)

¶6

APPENDIX

¶7

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

¶8

EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF A ROUGH SKETCH OF THE PROPERTY SHOWING THE LOCATION OF THE CRUSHER UNIT.

¶9

EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF LICENCE ISSUED BY THE PANCHAYAT TO THE PETITIONER.

¶10

EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF CONSENT ORDER ISSUED TO THE UNIT BY THE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD.

¶11

EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF INTERIM ORDER PASSED BY THE MUNSIFF COURT, THIRUVALLA IN O.S.447/08 AND AFFIDAVIT.

¶12

EXT.P4(a): TRUE COPY OF A ROUGH SKETCH OF THE PROPERTY SHOWING THE LOCATION OF THE CRUSHER UNIT.

¶13

EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF ORDER, DT.24.2.2009 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT ORDERING CLOSURE OF THE UNIT.

RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS

NIL.

/true copy/

P.S to Judge

P.V.ASHA, J.

W.P(c) No.7915 of 2009-H

¶20

Dated this the 20^th day of August, 2014

¶21

JUDGMENT

¶22

This Writ Petition is filed challenging Ext.P5 letter by which the Government directed the Secretary of Kottangal Grama Panchayat, Pathanamthitta, to cancel the licence issued to the crusher unit of the petitioner and report the same. This action is stated to be taken on the basis of the report of the Deputy Director of PanchayatS, Pathanamthitta, that condition Nos.12, 14, 16 and 20 in the licence issued by the Grama Panchayat are not being observed by the unit. The order is seen to have been passed on the basis of a letter dated 21.12.2007 No.C.1-988/07 of the Secretary of the Kottangal Grama Panchayat.

¶23

The case of the petitioner is that the crusher unit was purchased by him from Sri Anu T.George and transferred in the name of the petitioner in the year 2008-'09. According to the petitioner, he has been observing all the conditions stipulated in the licence issued by the Panchayat. Ext.P2 is a copy of the licence issued to him for the period 01.01.2009 to 31.03.2009

¶24

¶25

W.P(c) No.7915 of 2009-H

¶26

and the same was issued on 26.12.2008. According to the petitioner, condition Nos.12, 14, 16 and 20 are observed by him. Condition No.12 is that the unit shall not function from 6 p.m to 6 a.m. Condition No.14 is that no obstruction shall be caused to the public transport. Condition No.16 is that green belt surrounding the unit shall be maintained. Condition No.20 relates to protection of soil and water resources in and around the property.

¶27

I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel for the Kottangal Grama Panchayat and the learned Government Pleader. The learned counsel appearing for the Grama Panchayat submitted that the petitioner is observing all the conditions stipulated in the licence and that the licence is being renewed from year to year and that the petitioner is having licence for the period up to 31.03.2015 and he has also been obtained environmental clearance.

¶28

When this Writ Petition came up for admission, this Court had passed an order on 12.03.2009 directing the learned Government Pleader to get instructions as to the provision under which the Government issued Ext.P5 order. An interim order was also passed staying the operation and implementation of

¶29

¶30

W.P(c) No.7915 of 2009-H

¶31

Ext.P5 order.

¶32

The Government have not filed any counter affidavit. The learned Government Pleader furnished me the instructions received by him as per letter No.79202/RC3/2007/LSGD dated 31.03.2009, according to which, the order was passed on the basis of petitions received from residents of the area, after conducting a detailed enquiry through the Deputy Director of Panchayats, Pathanamthitta. According to which, the quarry owners were not fulfilling condition Nos.12, 14, 16 and 20 stipulated in the licence agreement. Further they relied on Section 191 (1)(c) of Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 which reads as follows:

¶33

“Power of Cancellation and suspension of resolutions etc.:(1) Government may either suo motu or, on a reference by President, Secretary or a member, or on a petition received from a citizen, cancel or vary a resolution passed or decision taken by the Panchayat if in their opinion such decision or resolution -

¶34

xxxx xxxxx xxxxxx

¶35

¶36

On a perusal of the above provision, it is seen that what is provided therein is action against a resolution passed or a decision taken by the Panchayat on the conditions stipulated therein. In this case, the Government has initiated action as

¶37

¶38

W.P(c) No.7915 of 2009-H

¶39

against the licence issued by the Secretary, Grama Panchayat under Section 232 of the Panchayat Raj Act. Moreover the provisions in Section 191 cannot be understood to mean that Government have got unbridled powers to cancel a licence issued by a statutory authority without ever observing the principles of Natural Justice, as done by Ext.P5.

¶40

At any rate, the Government order is seen issued on the basis of a report received in 2007, that too without issuing any notice to the petitioner or conducting any enquiry after giving him an opportunity to be heard.

¶41

In view of the above circumstances, I quash Ext.P5. This will not preclude the appropriate authorities taking any action if it is found necessary as and when any violation is found, after giving notice to the petitioner in accordance with law.

¶42

This Writ Petition is accordingly allowed to the above extent.

¶43

rtr/

¶44

Sd/- (P.V.ASHA, JUDGE)

Amity Rock Products (P0 Ltd. v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amity Rock Products (P0 Ltd. v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Radhamani R Vs Secretary, Department of Social Justice

C.G.Sukumaran Nair Vs Union of India

Ajithkumar.K.a. Vs Managing Director, Kerala State Textile

T.G.Vilasini Vs National Insurance Company

N.Komalakumar Vs the State of Kerala and Others

Fahad .K.M. Vs University of Kerala