MANGALATH, CHEROOR P.O.,TRISSUR DISTRICT - 680 008, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER ANIYAN MATHEW, MANGALATH HOUSE NO.917/A, CHEROOR P.O., TRISSUR DISTRICT - 680 008.

¶16

SRI. GEORGE POONTHOTTAM(SR) FOR RESPONDENT

¶17

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18.11.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WA.No.1447 OF 2020

JUDGMENT

S.MANIKUMAR,CJ

Instant writ appeal is directed against the judgment dated 16.9.2020 in W.P.(C) No.5911/2020, whereby a learned Single Judge of this Court taking note of section 233(6) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 and rule 12(3)(c) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj (Issue of Licence to Factories, Trades, Entrepreneurship activities and other services) Rules, 1996, held that respondent is entitled to deemed permit and licence, and allowed the writ petition and issued the following directions.

¶23

i) The Grama Panchayat is directed to issue permit to the petitioner under Section 233 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act within a period of three weeks.

¶24

ii) In view of the fact that the petitioner is entitled for deemed licence, a physical copy of such licence shall be issued to the petitioner by the Panchayat in terms of Rule 12(3) (c) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj (Issue of Licence to Factories, Trades, Entrepreneurship activities and other services) Rules, 1996 within a further period of three weeks.

¶25

While issuing the directions the learned Single Judge has also taken

¶26

note of decision of a Full Bench of this Court in Sudhakaran v. Pallichal

¶27

Grama Panchayat [Writ Appeal No.1710 of 2018] which held that if the defect was noted within the time, no question of deemed licence would arise.

¶28

However, Mr.A.Krishnan, learned counsel for the Anakkara Grama

¶29

WA.No.1447 OF 2020

¶30

¶31

Panchayat, the appellant herein, submitted that liberty may be given to take appropriate action in the event of any violation of the conditions of licence. In that context, we are of the view there is sufficient power conferred under Act, 1994 and Rules, 1996 as amended .

¶32

Section 233A of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 reads thus:

¶33

“233A : Abatement of nuisance caused by factory, workshop etc.-

¶34

(1) Where any factory, workshop, workplace or machinery causes, in the opinion of the Village Panchayat nuisance by reason of a particular kind of fuel being employed or by reason or the noise or vibration created, or effluent discharged or by reason of noxious odour, smoke or dust omitted, the Secretary may direct the person in charge of such factory, workshop, workplace or machinery for the abatement of such nuisance within a reasonable time to be specified for that purpose.

¶35

(2) The Village Panchayat may, if required, obtain expert opinion with regard to the determination of the nuisance or its abatement, at the cost of the owner or person in charge of the factory, workshop, workplace or machinery concerned.

¶36

(3) Where there has been wilful default in carrying out a direction given under sub-section (1) or where in the existing circumstances the abatement of nuisance is found impracticable, the Secretary may prohibit the working of the factory, workshop, workplace or machinery till such time the person concerned takes necessary step to the satisfaction of the Secretary for the abatement of the nuisance.”

¶37

Thus the statute itself empowers the competent authority to take appropriate action, if there is any violation of the terms of conditions of licence. Such being the position, no specific direction is called for.

¶38

WA.No.1447 OF 2020

¶39

¶40

In the light of the above discussion, the writ appeal is disposed of.

Sd/-

S.MANIKUMAR

CHIEF JUSTICE