This writ petition challenged the Tribunal's order directing a Panchayat to grant a licence for a granite quarry. The Supreme Court held that Section 233 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 does not require Panchayat permission if only a portable drilling machine is used.
The writ petition was dismissed as it was devoid of merits.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR
MONDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 28TH POUSHA, 1942
WP(C).No.24779 OF 2020(V)
PETITIONERS:
1 THE SECRETARY CHELAKKARA GRAMA PANCHAYAT, CHELAKKARA, TRICHUR
2 THE PANCHAYAT COMMITTEE CHELAKKARA GRAMA PANCHAYAT, CHELAKKARA P.O., TRICHUR REP. BY ITS PRESIDENT.
BY ADV. SRI.T.M.CHANDRAN
RESPONDENTS:
1 GOVINDANKUTTY.V S/O.RAMAN NAIR, MANAGING PARTNER, DIVYA METALS INDUSTRIES NATTIANCHIRA, CHELAKODE POST, PAZHAYANNUR, TRICHUR-680 587
2 THE TRIBUNAL FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTION THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001
R1 BY ADV. SRI.BINOY VASUDEVAN
SMT.G. RANJITA – GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07-01-2021, THE COURT ON 18-01-2021 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No.24779 OF 2020(V)
2
P.B.SURESH KUMAR, J.
W.P.(C) No.24779 of 2020
Dated this the 18th day of January, 2021.
J U D G M E N T
The Committee of a Grama Panchayat in the State and its Secretary are the petitioners in this writ petition. The grievance voiced by the petitioners in the writ petition concerns Ext.P10 decision of the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions (the Tribunal) in directing the Panchayat to grant the licence sought by the first respondent for operating a granite quarry within the limits of the Panchayat.
3
WP(C).No.24779 OF 2020(V)
to in the writ petition. The committee of the Panchayat considered the application preferred by the first respondent and decided to call for reports from the Mining and Geology Department of the State Government, authorities under the Environment (Protection) Act and also the State Pollution Control Board. Ext.P8 is the decision taken by the Panchayat in this regard. On the basis of Ext.P8 decision, the Secretary of the Panchayat issued Ext.P9 communication to the first respondent informing him that the application will be considered as and when the reports called for are received. Ext.P8 decision of the Panchayat and Ext.P9 communication of the Secretary of the Panchayat have been challenged by the first respondent before the Tribunal in Appeal No.844 of 2019. The Tribunal allowed the said appeal, set aside the impugned decision and communication and directed the Secretary of the Panchayat to grant the licence sought by the first respondent. Since the application preferred by the first respondent for licence was for the year 2018-19, in terms of
WP(C).No.24779 OF 2020(V)
4
the decision in the appeal, the Tribunal permitted the petitioner to prefer a fresh application for licence for the current year and clarified that the said application shall be allowed. Ext.P10 order passed by the Tribunal in Appeal No.844 of 2019 is under challenge in the writ petition.
WP(C).No.24779 OF 2020(V)
5
licence. It was also contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the Panchayat has not rejected the application preferred by t he first respondent for licence. Instead, the decision of the Panchayat was only to call for the reports from the authorities referred to in Ext.P8 decision. According to the learned counsel, such a decision ought not have been interfered with by the Tribunal, for the Pachayat has all the authority to do so for the purpose of considering the application preferred by the first respondent.
6
WP(C).No.24779 OF 2020(V)
from all the authorities referred to in Ext.P8 decision and therefore the Panchayat was bound to grant the licence applied for by him. It was pointed out by the learned counsel that reports of the authorities referred to in Ext.P8 were called for by the Panchayat only for the purpose of delaying the consideration of the application and the Tribunal, in the circumstances, was justified in directing the competent authority of the Panchayat to allow the application preferred by the first respondent.
7
WP(C).No.24779 OF 2020(V)
clarified by this court th at if a portable drilling machine alone is proposed to be used in a quarry, permission of the Panchayat under Section 233 of the Act is not required. The learned counsel for the first respondent asserts that the first respondent proposes to use only a portable drilling machine and it is on account of the said reason that he did not obtain permission of the Panchayat under Section 233 of the Act. In the light of the assertion made by the counsel for the first respondent, the contention raised by the petitioners that the first respondent should have obtained permission of the Panchayat under Section 233 of the Act before preferring the application for licence under the Rules is only to be rejected and I do so.
8
WP(C).No.24779 OF 2020(V)
been disputed by the petitioners in the writ petition. After the amendment brought to the Rules in terms of S.R.O.No.674 of 2017 with effect from 31 st October 2017, the authority of the competent authority of the Panchayat to decline licence on the ground of high density of population or nuisance has been taken away. After the said amendment, if the Panchayat is of the opinion that the establishment of the workplace is objectionable by reason of high density of population in the neighbourhood or possible nuisance, the competent authority is empowered only to obtain an expert opinion for determination of the issue relating to nuisance or its abatement and bound to issue the licence sought subject to conditions as may be required for abatement of the nuisance, if any, as recommended in the expert opinion. In other words, after the amendment referred to above, if the application for grant of licence under the Rules is in order, and accompanied by all the requisite permissions and clearances including the permissions and clearances of the authorities made mention
9
WP(C).No.24779 OF 2020(V)
of in Ext.P8 decision, the competent authority of the Panchayat would not be justified in delaying the consideration of the application for licence by calling for additional reports from the authorities concerned. As indicated, in such cases, the competent authority of the Panchayat can resort to only the course of action referred to above. In the said view of the matter, I do not find any infirmity in the decision of the Tribunal impugned in the writ petition.
The writ petition is devoid of merits and the same is accordingly dismissed.
Sd/P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE.
PV
WP(C).No.24779 OF 2020(V)
10
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF COMPLAINT DATED 18.10.2019 FILED BY THE RESIDENTS IN WARD NO.2 AND 3 EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 18.10.2019 FILED BY THE RESIDENTS IN WARD NO.3 EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT RECEIVED BY THE PANCHAYAT ON 13.11.2019 FROM PARENTS OF THE STUDENTS OF ANGANWADI EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 16.11.2019 FROM RESIDENTS IN WARD NO.3 EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 20.11.2019 SENT TO GEOLOGIST EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 20.11.2019 SENT TO ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 20.11.2019 SENT OT MEMBER SECRETARY SEIAA EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF DECISION DATED 18.11.2019 TAKEN BY THE PANCHAYAT EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF DECISION DATED 19.11.2019 TAKEN BY THE SECRETARY OF PANCHAYAT EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 2.7.2020 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT R-1(A) TRUE COPY OF ENVIRONMENT CLEARANCE NO.71/2017 DATED 10-10-2017 ISSUED BY
11
WP(C).No.24779 OF 2020(V)
THE STATE ENVIRONMENT IMPACT ASSESSMENT AUTHORITY
EXHIBIT R-1(D) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.7167/M3/2015 DATED 08-07-2015
EXHIBIT R-1(E) TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO.8589/M3/2020 DATED 27-10-2020
EXHIBIT R-1(F) TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 24-09-2018
EXHIBIT R-1(G) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 22-10-2019 IN APPEAL NO.89 OF 2019 OF THE TRIBUNAL FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
EXHIBIT R-1(H) TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN APPEAL NO.89/2019 BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
2 issues framed by the court
Whether permission of the Panchayat under Section 233 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 was required to apply for a granite quarry licence when only a portable drilling machine was proposed.
Whether the Tribunal was justified in directing the Panchayat to grant a licence after the amendment of the Rules regarding nuisance and population density.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Ajantha v. Nagaroor Grama PanchayatRelied on¶40
Ajantha v. Nagaroor Grama Panchayat, 2018 (3) KLT 22
3 provisions across 3 enactments
The Secretary Chelakkara Grama Panchayat
The Panchayat Committee Chelakkara Grama Panchayat
Govindankutty.V
The Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions Thiruvananthapuram
P.B. Suresh Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
