Disposed

Siju Mathew v. the Ramapuram Grama Panchayath

Kerala HC13 Dec 2016WP(C)/17908/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged rejection of quarrying permit application based on Panchayath Resolution. Court set aside order to facilitate fresh consideration by Panchayath, directed to apply Ex.P13 judgment which mandated untrammeled consideration.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order (Ext.P14) set aside and Panchayath directed to consider application afresh untrammeled by earlier findings.

Siju Mathew Vs the Ramapuram Grama Panchayath — Municipal and Town Planning | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2016/22ND AGRAHAYANA, 1938 WP(C).No. 17908 of 2016 (K) ----------------------------

¶5

PETITIONER:

¶6

SIJU MATHEW, S/O. MATHEW, KUZHIKANNIYIL HOUSE, THAZHUVANKUNNU P.O, KALLOORKADU, MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADVS.SRI.V.G.ARUN SRI.T.R.HARIKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): -------------1. THE RAMAPURAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, RAMAPURAM P.O., KOTTAYAM-686576. 2. THE SECRETARY, RAMAPURAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH, RAMAPURAM P.O., KOTTAYAM-686576. * ADDL R3 TO R5 IMPLEADED 3. PIZHAKU NAVAMYTHIRI RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, GEORGE SEBASTIAN, PIZHAKU P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN-686651. 4. SINI SEBASTIAN, THACHAMPURATH HOUSE, PIZHAKU P.O, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN-686651. 5. K.A THOMAS KAROOR HOUSE, PIZHAKU P.O, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN-686651. * ADDL R3 TO R5 ARE IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 27.7.2016 IN IA NO 10758/2016. R1&2 BY ADV. SRI.P.C.HARIDAS R3-R5 BY ADV. SRI.GEORGEKUTTY MATHEW THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13-12-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶7

K.V.

¶8

WP(C).No. 17908 of 2016 (K)

¶9

APPENDIX

¶10

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶11

P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE LOCATION SKETCH OF THE QUARRY PREPARED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, VELLILAPPALLY.

¶12

P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE LICENCE NO. B3-208/12-13 DATED 11-9-2012 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶13

P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 26-11-2012 IN APPEAL NO. 864 OF 2012 OF THE TRIBUNAL FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS.

¶14

P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE RESOLUTION NO. IX DATED 31-5-2013 OF THE PANCHAYAT COMMITTEE OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶15

P5 A TRUE COPY OF RESOLUTION NO.X TAKEN IN THE PANCHAYAT COMMITTEE MEETING HELD ON 31-05-2013.

¶16

P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 23-10-2013 IN WPC NO. 16809 OF 2013.

¶17

P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO. B3-5688/11 DATED 30-11-2013 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶18

P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE RESOLUTION NO.1 DATED 23-10-2013 OF THE PANCHAYAT COMMITTEE OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶19

P9 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 23-07-2014 IN I.A.303 OF 2014 IN WPC NO. 507 OF 2014.

¶20

P10 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMISSION REPORT DATED 03-08-2014 IN I.A.303 OF 2014 IN WPC NO. 507 OF 2014.

¶21

P11 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN COC NO. 891 OF 2014 DATED 01-10-2014.

¶22

P12 A TRUE COPY OF THE 2ND COMMISSION REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER ON 18-11-2014 IN I.A.303 OF 2014 IN WPC NO. 507 OF 2014

¶23

P13 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC NO. 507 OF 2014 DATED 19-11-2015.

¶24

P14 A TRUE COPY OF THE RESOLUTION NO.X DATED 18-2-2016 OF THE PANCHAYAT COMMITTEE OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶25

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS

¶26

R2A A TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION TO THE COMMISSION REPORT FILED IN WPC 507/14.

/TRUE COPY/

P.A.TO JUDGE

K.V.

K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.

¶31

===================== W.P.(C) No.17908 of 2016 - K

¶32

======================

¶33

Dated this the 13^th day of December, 2016

¶34

J U D G M E N T

¶35

The petitioner is aggrieved with Ext.P14 order. By Ext.P14, the Panchayath rejected the application for quarrying permit, based on the earlier decision taken by the Panchayath itself. The earlier decision was taken by Resolution No.1 dated 23.10.2013, produced as Ext.P8 herein. The petitioner's contention is that the petitioner has all permits, sanctions except the Environmental Clearance (EC) and that the rejection of permit under Section 233 of the Kerala Panchayath Raj Act,

¶36

1994 is not proper.

¶37

The learned Counsel appearing for the

¶38

respondent Panchayath however submits that the petitioner

¶39

has not produced any consent to establish from the Kerala

¶40

¶41

W.P.(C) No.17908 of 2016 - K

¶42

State Pollution Control Board and that EC is necessary before the consideration is made. It is to be noticed that Ext.P14 has not rejected the application on any of the grounds now stated before this Court. The Panchayath merely relied on its earlier decision. In fact Ext.P13 judgment directed that the application be considered untrammelled by the findings in Ext.P12. Ext.P12 produced therein is the copy of the Resolution No.1 dated, 23.10.2013, which is produced as Ext.P8 herein. In

¶43

such circumstance, since the reliance placed is only on the earlier decision, Ext.P14 is set aside to facilitate fresh consideration. The Panchayath shall consider the matter afresh.

¶44

The writ petition would stand disposed of.

¶45

Sd/-

¶46

K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE

¶47

SB/13/12/2016

¶48

// true copy //

¶49

P.A to Judge

Siju Mathew v. the Ramapuram Grama Panchayath

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Siju Mathew v. the Ramapuram Grama Panchayath

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

V.K.Mohammed Salih Vs Arif Lohani

Loveson K.J Vs N.Gopalakrishnan

Shoukath Ali Vs Ministry of Environment and Forest

Biji Vijayan Vs District Collector

Harid Vs Karunagappally Grama

A.J.Walston Vs State of Kerala