Allowed

M/S. Adani Vizhinjam Port Pvt. Ltd., v. Manickal Grama Panchayat

Kerala HC13 Jan 2021WP(C)/274/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition wherein the petitioner, a port company, sought a declaration of deemed license under Section 236(3) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act and a direction to the Mining and Geology Director to consider its quarrying lease application following the panchayat's refusal to issue the D&O license.

What did the court decide?

Declared the petitioner to have secured a valid deemed license as on 5.9.2020 under Section 236(3) of the Act; directed the 3rd respondent to consider the quarrying lease application within six weeks.

M/S. Adani Vizhinjam Port Pvt. Ltd., Vs… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 23TH POUSHA, 1942

¶5

WP(C).No.274 OF 2021(H)

¶6

PETITIONER/S:

¶7

M/S. ADANI VIZHINJAM PORT PVT. LTD., HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT ADANI CORPORATE HOUSE, SHANTIGRAM, NR. VAISHNO DEVI CIRCLE, S.G HIGHWAY AHMEDABAD, GUJARAT-682 421 AND HAVING ITS BRANCH OFFICE AT 2ND FLOOR, VIPANCHIKA TOWERS, THYCAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS MD AND CEO SRI. RAJESH KUMAR JHA.

¶8

BY ADVS. SRI.ROSHEN.D.ALEXANDER SMT.TINA ALEX THOMAS SHRI.HARIMOHAN

¶9

RESPONDENT/S:

¶10

1 MANICKAL GRAMA PANCHAYAT OFFICE OF THE MANICKAL GRAMA PANCHAYAT, PIRAPPANCODE P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 607 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶11

2 THE SECRETARY MANICKAL GRAMA PANCHAYAT, OFFICE OF THE MANICKAL GRAMA PANCHAYAT, PIRAPPANCODE P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 607.

¶12

3 THE DIRECTOR OF MINING AND GEOLOGY DIRECTORATE OF MINING AND GEOLOGY, PATTOM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 004.

¶13

4 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF PORTS AND FISHERIES GOVERNEMNT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM695 001.

¶14

R1-2 BY ADV. SHRI.K.P.HARISH GP.SRI. A RAVIKRISHNAN

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

WP(C).No.274 OF 2021(H)

¶17

¶18

JUDGMENT

¶19

The petitioner, which is a private limited company, and selected as the Concessionaire for the Design, Build, Finance, Operate and Transfer of Vizhinjam Seaport Project, has approached this Court aggrieved by Ext.P17 order passed by the 1^st respondent Panchayat, which refused to issue the D &O license to the petitioner for conducting quarrying operations in Block No. 29 of Re-survey No.170/10 of Manickal Village. In the writ petition, it is the case of the petitioner that the application for D &O license was submitted by the petitioner as early as on 18.3.2020 and resubmitted on 5.8.2020, and by 5.9.2020 the petitioner had secured a deemed license, in terms of Section 236(3) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act. It is the specific case of the petitioner that during the said period, there was no communication in the nature of Ext.P17 from the 1^st respondent and hence it has to be treated as having obtained a deemed license by virtue of the provisions referred above. There is a further prayer in the writ petition for a direction to the 3^rd respondent to consider its application for quarrying lease on the basis of the deemed license secured by it as per Section 236(3) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act( 'the Act' for short).

¶20

2.I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and also the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

¶21

3.On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case as also the submissions made across the Bar, I find that the circumstances under which an applicant for D&O license can be said to have obtained a deemed license in accordance with Section 236(3) of the Act, have been delineated by

¶22

WP(C).No.274 OF 2021(H)

¶23

¶24

a Full Bench decision of this Court in Abdul Kharim and Another V. Pazhayakunummel Grama Panchayat and Another, [2018(5) KHC 643 ].

¶25

4.Taking cue from the said decision, I am of the view that on the facts of the instant case, the petitioner can be said to have secured a valid deemed license as on 5.9.2020 in terms of Section 236(3) of the Act. Accordingly, I dispose the writ petition by declaring the petitioner as having secured and valid deemed license as on 5.9.2020 under Section 236(3) of the Act, and directing the 3^rd respondent to consider the petitioner's application for quarrying lease on the basis of the said declaration and the applications submitted by him for the said lease. The 3^rd respondent shall consider and pass orders on the application for quarrying lease within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, after hearing the petitioner.

¶26

The petitioner shall produce a copy of the writ petition together with a copy of this judgment, before the 3^rd respondent, for further action.

¶27

Sd/-

¶28

A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR

¶29

JUDGE

¶30

¶31

WP(C).No.274 OF 2021(H)

¶32

¶33

APPENDIX

¶34

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶35

EXHIBIT P1	TRUE COPY OF MINUTES OF MEETING DATED 3.7.2018 WHICH WAS COMMUNICATED TO THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOLLAM VIDE COMMUNICATION DATED 5.7.2018.
EXHIBIT P2	TRUE COPY OF NOC BEARING NO.B7-127329/18 DATED 13.7.2018.
EXHIBIT P3	TRUE COPY OF APPROVAL ORDER BEARING NO.362/DOT/ML/18 DATED 24.7.2019 ISSUED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF MINING AND GEOLOGY.
EXHIBIT P4	TRUE COPY OF ENVIRONMENTAL CLEARANCE NO.29/2020 ISSUED BY SEIAA BY ITS PROCEEDINGS NO.1416/EC1/2019/SEIAA DATED 27.2.2020.
EXHIBIT P5	TRUE COPY OF CONSENT NO.PCB/TVM- DO/ICO/NDD/QRY/29/2020 DATED 16.3.2020 ISSUED BY THE KERALA POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD.
EXHIBIT P6	TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT BEARING NO.AVPPL/GOK/2019-20/1087 DATED 18.3.2020.
EXHIBIT P6(A)	TRUE COPY OF RECEIPT ACKNOWLEDGING PETITIONER'S APPLICATION FOR D&O LICENSE BEARING NO.7042797 BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P7	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER BEARING NO.A4- 2828/20 DATED 27.4.2020 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P8	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT BEARING NO.AVPPL/GOK/2020-21/1167 DATED 20.6.2020.
EXHIBIT P9	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER OF INTENT ISSUED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF MINING AND GEOLOGY BEARING NO.5219/M3/2019 DATED 7.6.2019.
EXHIBIT P10	TRUE COPY OF THE EXPLOSIVE LICENSE ISSUED BY PESO DATED 17.6.2020.

¶36

WP(C).No.274 OF 2021(H)

¶37

¶38

EXHIBIT P11	TRUE COPY OF LETTER BEARING NO.A4-2828/20 DATED 18.7.2020 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P12	TRUE COPY OF COMPLIANCE REPORT DATED 5.8.2020 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P13	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER BEARING NO.A4- 2828/20 DATED 27.8.2020 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P14	TRUE COPY OF THE EMAIL DATED 14.10.2020 ISSUED BY THE MANAGER-PROJECTS OF THE PETITIONER TO VISL.
EXHIBIT P15	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER BEARING NO.VISL/2018-19/EE&EI-11/396 DATED 20.10.2020 ISSUED BY VISL TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P16	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 2.12.2020 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P17	TRUE COPY OF THE RESOLUTION NO.13(1) DATED 16.10.2020 OF THE COMMITTEE MEETING.
EXHIBIT P18	TRUE COPY OF MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE PANCHAYAT COMMITTEE HELD ON 16.10.2020.
EXHIBIT P19	TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 16.3.2020 IN WPC NO.8008/2020.
EXHIBIT P20	TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN ABDUL KHARIM AND ANOTHER V. PAZHAYAKUNNUMMEL GRAMA PANCHAYAT AND ANOTHER, 2018(4) KLT 1086 (FB) 2018 (5) KHC 643.
EXHIBIT P21	TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN ANIYERI SATYAN V. THRIPRANGOTTOOR GRAMA PANCHAYAT AND ANOTHER, 2018(5) KHC 580.
EXHIBIT P22	TRUE COPY OF DECISION IN SREEDHARAN N V. KALLUVATHUKKAL PANCHAYAT, 2015 (1) KLT 778: 2015 (1) KHC 540.

M/S. Adani Vizhinjam Port Pvt. Ltd., v. Manickal Grama Panchayat

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Adani Vizhinjam Port Pvt. Ltd., v. Manickal Grama Panchayat

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Lisna Latheef Vs Director

V.Sudhakaran Vs the Local Self Government Tribunal

Lawrence Bosco Lopez Vs Assistant Engineer

Pramod.N Vs the Director General of Police

K.M.Jalal Vs Village Officer

Muhammed Shafi Vs the District Geologist