Partly allowed

Noushad K., v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC12 Jul 2024WP(C)/11462/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Residents challenged a Single Window Clearance Board certificate permitting an M-sand unit, while the company challenged the Panchayat's stop memo. The court held the Board had power to grant clearances overriding Section 233, but quashed the certificate and Board decision for lack of site inspection and reasons, quashed the stop memo, and directed reconsideration after hearing all parties.

What did the court decide?

Ext.P10 certificate and Ext.P7 decision quashed; Panchayat stop memo dated 03.04.2023 quashed; Board directed to reconsider the application per the Act and Rules within four weeks after hearing all pa

Noushad K., Vs State of Kerala — Municipal and Town Planning | Kerala HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED NIAS C.P.

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 12^TH DAY OF JULY 2024 / 21ST ASHADHA, 1946

¶5

WP(C) NO. 12993 OF 2023

¶6

PETITIONER/S:

¶7

M/S. MOONLIGHT PREMIUM SANDS PVT LTD,

¶8

KIZHAKKANELA, NAVAIKULAM, VARKALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN – 695603, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, SALU S.S.,

¶9

BY ADVS.

¶10

PHILIP J.VETTICKATTU SAJITHA GEORGE NEENU BERNATH

¶11

RESPONDENT/S:

¶12

1 THE SECRETARY, NAVAIKULAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT, NAVAIKULAM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695603

¶13

ADDL.R2. MUHAMMED IRSHAD M.K., S/O.MUSTAFA KUNJU, AGED 47, RESIDING AT DARULHUDA, KIZHAKKANELA P.O., KOLLAM691574

¶14

ADDL.R3. FIROS KHAN,

¶15

S/O.NAZAR, AGED 44,PARAVILA HOUSE, KIZHAKKANELA P.O., PARIPPALLY, KOLLAM- 691 574

¶16

4ADDL.R4. MANOJ S., S/O.SHAHABUDIN, AGED 45,MANOJ MANZIL, KIZHAKKANELA P.O., PARIPPALLY, KOLLAM691 574

¶17

ADDL.R5. NOUSHAD K. S/O.KHALID E., AGED 52, JYOTHIRGAMAYA, KETTIDAM JUNCTION, VETTIYARA P.O., NAVAIKULAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695603

¶18

ADDL.R6. ANZARI M.

¶19

S/O.MOHAMMED KUNJU, AGED 46, SUHAIL MANZIL, KETTIDOM JUNCTION, VETTIYARA P.O., NAVAIKULAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 603. [ARE IMPLEADED AS ADDL.R2 TO R6 AS PER ORDER DATED 05.07.2023 IN I.A.1/2023 IN WP(C)12993/2023.]

¶20

BY ADVS. SRI.BIJU BALAKRISHNAN,SC SRI.M.SREEKUMAR

¶21

W.P(C) Nos.11462/23 & 12993/23

¶22

:2:

¶23

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR FINAL HEARING ON 02.07.2024, ALONG WITH WP(C).11462/2023, THE COURT ON 12.07.2024 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶24

W.P(C) Nos.11462/23 & 12993/23

¶25

:3:

¶26

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶27

PRESENT

¶28

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED NIAS C.P.

¶29

FRIDAY, THE 12^TH DAY OF JULY 2024 / 21ST ASHADHA, 1946

¶30

WP(C) NO. 11462 OF 2023

¶31

PETITIONER/S:

¶32

1 NOUSHAD K., AGED 52 YEARS, S/O.KHALID E., JYOTHIRGAMAYA, KETTIDAM JUNCTION, VETTIYARA P.O., NAVAIKULAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695603

¶33

2 FIROS KHAN, AGED 44 YEARS, S/O.NAZAR, PARAVILA HOUSE, KIZHAKKANELA P.O., PARIPPALLY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 691574

¶34

3 MANOJ S., AGED 45 YEARS, S/O.SHAHABUDIN, MANOJ MANZIL, KIZHAKKANELA P.O., PARIPPALLY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 691574

¶35

4 ANZARI M., AGED 46 YEARS, S/O.MOHAMMED KUNJU, SUHAIL MANZIL, KETTIDOM JUNCTION, VETTIYARA P.O., NAVAIKULAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695603

¶36

BY ADV M.SREEKUMAR

¶37

RESPONDENT/S:

¶38

1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001

¶39

2 THE DISTRICT SINGLE WINDOW CLEARANCE BOARD, WATER WORKS COMPOUND, VELLAYAMBALAM P.O.,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695043

¶40

3 NAVAIKULAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, NAVAIKULAM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695603

¶41

4 SECRETARY, NAVAIKULAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH, NAVAIKULAM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695603

¶42

W.P(C) Nos.11462/23 & 12993/23

¶43

:4:

¶44

5 M/S.MOONLIGHT PREMIUM SANDS PVT.LTD., KIZHAKKANELA P.O., NAVAIKULAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN – 691574, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR

¶45

BY ADVS. SMT. DEVI SHRI R., GOVT. PLEADER SRI.BIJU BALAKRISHNAN,SC PHILIP J.VETTICKATTU SAJITHA GEORGE NEENU BERNATH

¶46

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR FINAL HEARING ON 02.07.2024, ALONG WITH W.P(C) No.12993/2023, THE COURT ON 12.07.2024 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶47

W.P(C) Nos.11462/23 & 12993/23

¶48

:5:

¶49

MOHAMMED NIAS C. P. , J.

¶50

……………………………………………………... W. P. (C) Nos. 11462 & 12993 of 2023

¶51

Dated this the 12^th day of July, 2024

¶52

J U D G M E N T

¶53

W.P(C) No.11462/2023 is filed by the petitioners claiming to be the residents in the third respondent Panchayat who challenged the attempt of the fifth respondent to establish an M-sand unit in their neighbourhood, in total violation of the Rules and Regulations applicable. W.P(C) No.12993/2023 is filed by the fifth respondent in the connected writ petition challenging Ext.P14 stop memo issued by the Panchayat, dated 03.04.2023.

¶54

Earlier, the petitioners had filed W.P(C) Nos. 22117/2018 and 35055/2016 alleging that the fifth respondent sought to establish the industry without obtaining permission under Section 233 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994. and in the said process, a hill having a height of 50 metres was removed, which seriously affected the nearby water resources causing serious ecological problems. This Court, by common judgment dated 12.02.2019, in the above cases held that the fifth respondent had obtained a building permit for a commercial building and not for industrial occupancy and, therefore, the question of establishment permit under Section 233 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act would not come into play unless a category change was

¶55

W.P(C) Nos.11462/23 & 12993/23

¶56

:6:

¶57

allowed by the Panchayat on the application of the fifth respondent. The judgment is marked as Ext.P1.

¶58

The fifth respondent challenged Ext.P1 common judgment by filing W.A.No.1371/2019 and W.A.No.1503/2019. By judgment of the Division Bench dated 20.12.2021, W.A.No.1371/2019, which was filed against the judgment in W.P(C) No.22117/2018, was dismissed holding that the fifth respondent did not have an establishment permit and, therefore, they cannot be permitted to establish the unit on the strength of a building permit issued for commercial purpose. The said judgment of the Division Bench is marked as Ext.P2. W.A.No.1503/2019, which was filed against the judgment in W.P(C) No. 35055/2016, was referred to a Full Bench to consider the correctness of the judgment of the Division Bench in Tomy Thomas v. State of Kerala [2019 (3) KLT 987] . The reference sought is marked as Ext.P3.

¶59

The petitioners essentially contend that the fifth respondent had got a permission, Ext.P10, under the provisions of the Kerala Industrial Single Window Clearance Boards and Industrial Township Area Development Act, 1999, (hereinafter referred to as ' Single Window Clearance Act ') by making an application before the second respondent. Ext.P5 is stated to be the application preferred by the fifth respondent to the second respondent. The petitioners contend that even the format of the application was wrong and that the application should have been in terms of the relevant provision as on the date of the application. The fifth respondent had approached this Court by filing W.P(C) No. 4979/2022, which directed the second

¶60

W.P(C) Nos.11462/23 & 12993/23

¶61

:7:

¶62

respondent to take a decision within a time limit as per Ext.P6 judgment. Pursuant to the judgment and based on Ext.P7 minutes of the meeting of the second respondent, the fifth respondent was granted a certificate dated 20.05.2022 in terms of Rule 9(2) of the Kerala Industrial Single Window Clearance Boards and Industrial Township Area Development Rules, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Single Window Clearance Rules’). The fifth respondent again approached this Court by filing W.P(C) No.12652/2022 seeking a modification of Ext.P8 certificate issued by the second respondent contending that instead of the word 'licence', it should be changed to, 'clearance', which was allowed as per Ext.P9 judgment dated 27.7.2022 in W.P(C) No. 12652/2022. Accordingly, a fresh certificate dated 01.10.2022 was issued by the second respondent by modifying the word “licence” as “clearance” and also by incorporating the names of the enactments under which the clearance was granted, namely under the Kerala Panchayat Building Rules, 2019, Section 233 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act and Regulation No.5 of the Kerala Electricity Supply Code, 2014. The said certificate dated 01.10.2022 is marked as Ext.P10. The petitioners challenge Ext.P10 on the ground that it is contrary to the provisions of the Single Window Clearance Act as the application was in the wrong format, there was no site inspection conducted that is mandated in the Rules and that solely on the ground that the Panchayat did not object, the clearance was granted without taking into account any other relevant aspects. It is also their contention that the impact of Section 233 of the Panchayat Raj Act was not noticed by the Single Window Clearance

¶63

W.P(C) Nos.11462/23 & 12993/23

¶64

:8:

¶65

Board. It is also stated that the stand taken while granting Ext.P10, that the judgment of the Division Bench, Ext.P2, will have no connection with the issuance of a licence, was absolutely illegal and the entire issue involved in the writ appeal was whether the fifth respondent was entitled for establishing an M-sand unit and also the impact of Section 233 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act. It is to get over the rigour of the judgment that the fifth respondent approached the Single Window Clearance Board. Contending that Ext.P10 was issued completely contrary to the provisions of the Single Window Clearance Act and its Rules and also against the terms of Ext.P2 judgment of the Division Bench, the above writ petition was filed.

¶66

A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the fifth respondent denying all the contentions raised by the petitioners and also stating that the petitioners are residing at an average distance of 150-700 metres of air distance from the boundary of their unit and that no rights of the petitioners are affected by the issuance of Ext.P10. It is also submitted that Ext.P10 granted by the Single Window Clearance Board is legal and that, going by the provisions of the Single Window Clearance Act, they were entitled to a deemed licence as no decision was taken within the 30 days mentioned therein. It is further pointed out that the petitioners filed W.P(C) No.12652/2022 for a direction to get a certificate certifying that they had obtained a deemed permit. They rely on the permission that they obtained as Ext.R5(g), which is a consent issued by the Pollution Control Board vide proceedings dated 10.06.2016, which was valid up to 19.04.2019 and which was later extended. They also rely on the

¶67

W.P(C) Nos.11462/23 & 12993/23

¶68

:9:

¶69

permit granted under the Factories Act, Ext.R5(i), the permission granted by Fire and Rescue Services, Ext.R5(k) and the layout approval and the development permit issued by the Chief Town Planner, Ext.R5(l). Apart from the above, they also point out Ext.R5(c) dated 30.09.2016, a report submitted by the Assistant Engineer, LSGD Section of the Panchayat stating that the site was inspected by him and that it was not a hilly or sloppy area. The Assistant Engineer had issued the same after obtaining a report from the Village Officer and the Agricultural Officer concerned, who stated that there were no streams , wetlands or hills in the area where construction was permitted. They also rely on Ext.R5(c) as above stated and also the development permit issued by the local authority, Ext.R5(d). The report of the Secretary of the Panchayat stated that there are no wetlands or streams near the site, Ext.R5(e) and the photographs of the area, Ext.R5(f) were also produced. They claim that they are entitled to run the business on the strength of the licences so obtained by them.

¶70

A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondents 3 and 4, the Panchayat and the Secretary respectively, pointing out that though the Chief Town Planner had granted sanction and development permit as per Ext.R4(a), the conditions of which were violated by the petitioner and the development works were carried out in violation of the terms mentioned therein by indiscriminately removing soil from the said property, which led to the issuance of Ext.R4(b) stop memo by them on 03.10.2016. They also contend that the panchayat committee had convened a meeting on 15.10.2016 and resolved to request the statutory authorities to reconsider

¶71

W.P(C) Nos.11462/23 & 12993/23

¶72

:10:

¶73

their respective decisions according sanction/consent to the company for carrying out the development activities. The true copy of the resolution is produced as Ext.R4(c). They had also forwarded the resolution to the respective authorities. The fifth respondent had approached the Tribunal for Local Self-Government Institutions which passed Ext.R4(f) order in W.A.No.967/2016. Against the order of the Tribunal that W.P(C) No. 22117/2008 was filed by the petitioners herein and which led to the common judgment as stated above.

¶74

A counter affidavit has also been filed on behalf of the Director of Industries and Commerce, wherein it is stated that the Single Window Clearance Board had unanimously decided to give a certificate to the fifth respondent on the ground that the Panchayat raised no objection and they also maintained the stand that the judgment of the Division Bench had no connection with the issue of licence to the fifth respondent. It is also stated that though a certificate was issued in Form-C, it is stated that if the clearance/certificate/licence is obtained by misrepresentation of facts or the information given in the application for the grant of clearance/certificate/licence is found to be false or if the applicant had committed violation of any provisions of any Act or Rules made thereunder, the Board had the power to cancel/revoke the deemed clearance/certificate/licence and impose penalty on the applicant under the above provisions.

¶75

Heard, Sri. M. Sreekumar, the learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P(C) No.11462/2023, Sri.Biju Balakrishnan, the learned Standing Counsel for the

¶76

W.P(C) Nos.11462/23 & 12993/23

¶77

:11:

¶78

Panchayat, Sri. Philip J. Vettickattu, the learned counsel appearing for the fifth respondent and Smt. Devi Shri R., the learned Government Pleader.

¶79

The learned counsel for the petitioners Sri.M. Sreekumar submits that after the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge as well as the Division Bench in appeal, the fifth respondent unit ought to have applied for permission under Section 233 before the Panchayat concerned and could not have invoked the provisions of the Single Window Clearance Act. It is also his submission that Ext.P10 permission was granted by the District Board without any application of mind on the relevant matters and the only reason for the grant of permit was that there was no objection raised by the Panchayat. He further argues that the consideration by the Board under the Single Window Clearance Act was only for a building permit as is revealed from the orders passed by them and, therefore, the establishment of the unit or its impact was never considered. He also submits that the application was not made in the prescribed form and therefore, there was no consideration of the relevant materials insisted upon in the form. He challenges Ext.P10 on the above grounds.

¶80

The learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondent Sri. Philip J. Vettickattu submits that the fifth respondent unit was entitled to make an application under the Single Window Clearance Act wherein the Secretary of the Panchayat is also involved. The very Act is meant to speed up the grant of licence/clearances and certificates required for setting up of industrial undertakings in the State of Kerala and for matters connected therewith. The Panchayat, being a

¶81

W.P(C) Nos.11462/23 & 12993/23

¶82

:12:

¶83

member of the District Board, was bound to act on the recommendations and directions of the Board. He further argues that the Board has not taken into account the requirements under Section 233 of the Panchayat Raj Act also cannot be accepted as the District Board is given jurisdiction under the Act to decide matters which can be decided by the Panchayat under Section 233 of the Panchayat Raj Act and the District Board is not bound by the procedure prescribed in the provisions of the Panchayat Raj Act, but only bound by the procedure in the Single Window Clearance Act. He also submits that this Court had directed the application submitted to consider and the same was the application which was considered and there was no objection raised by anyone at that stage about how the application had to be filed. He also argues that going by the date of the application, as no orders were passed in 30 days, the fifth respondent must be deemed to have obtained a deemed permit, going by the Rules framed under the Single Window Clearance Act.

¶84

The learned Standing Counsel for the Panchayat supports the case of the petitioners and opposes the permission granted to the fifth respondent unit and points out that they had written to the statutory authority not to grant licence to the fifth respondent.

¶85

The learned Government Pleader submits that Ext.P10 order is passed in tune with the provisions of the Single Window Clearance Act and also submits that in case a licence/clearance is obtained by misrepresentation, they always have the power to revoke the permission granted.

¶86

W.P(C) Nos.11462/23 & 12993/23

¶87

:13:

¶88

After considering the rival contentions, there cannot be any doubt that the Single Window Clearance Act enables the passing of orders granting clearance for establishing the unit and that they are only bound by the provisions in the said Act and Rules. The said Act being a Special Act, would prevail upon the general provisions in the Panchayat Raj Act and the Panchayat will also be bound by the recommendations and directions of the District Board. The Panchayat authorities are also represented in the Board wherein they can ventilate their grievances. But once a decision is taken, the same has to be held to be binding even on the Panchayat. In the instant case, no sufficient or reasonable grounds were pointed out by the Panchayat against the fifth respondent unit and accordingly, their right to question the permission granted by the District Board is very limited. The very concept of the Single Window Clearance Act is to ensure a comprehensive consideration of all the relevant objections and to show that a person who applies for a licence need not knock on the doors of the various authorities under different legislation for obtaining a valid licence. Given the above, the argument that the fifth respondent was bound by the directions in the judgment in the earlier cases, or that the District Board did not have the power to issue clearance cannot be accepted and the same is hereby rejected. It is also held, that even the Panchayat, being a member of the Board, is bound by orders passed by the District Board more so when they did not raise any objections and the same is noted in the orders passed by the District Board. As a sequel, it has to be held that there was no requirement for the fifth respondent

¶89

W.P(C) Nos.11462/23 & 12993/23

¶90

:14:

¶91

unit to apply to the Panchayat under Section 233 of the Panchayat Raj Act and the said contention of the writ petitioner is also to be rejected.

¶92

Having held that the District Board had the power to grant clearances, it has to be seen that the Rules under the Single Window Clearance Act, speak of a site inspection by the Board and also reasons to be recorded for the grant of permission. Ext.P10 does not reflect that a site inspection was conducted, nor is there any record in the present case suggesting a physical inspection having been conducted. No reasons are also stated for granting of suggestion for a permit to the fifth respondent and the same has been granted only for the reason that there was no objection from the Panchayat. When power is granted to the District Board under Section 8 of the Single Window Clearance Act, to issue licence or permissions either with modification or without, and also to refuse clearance, if, in its opinion, the proposed construction, establishment or installation, it must be taken that the said power has to be exercised reasonably with the object of the Act in mind. As per Rule 8 of the Single Window Clearance Rules, there is a requirement under Rule 8 to conduct a physical inspection or to cause an inspection and reasons also to be recorded under Rule 10 for taking a decision as stipulated in the sections mentioned above. In the absence of the same being reflected in Ext.P10 as well as in Ext.P7 which dealt with the decision taken on 05.05.2022 and which incidentally considered the application as one for a building permit as decision No.1, it is clear that the clearance was granted

¶93

W.P(C) Nos.11462/23 & 12993/23

¶94

:15:

¶95

by the second respondent Board in violation of the Single Window Clearance Act and Rules.

¶96

The contention of the learned counsel for the fifth respondent, that he is entitled to a deemed permit more so on account of Ext.P9 judgment in W.P(C) No.12652/2022 and the interim order passed in that case, has to be rejected as there is no finding or direction or declaration of a deemed permit in the said judgment. The petitioners submit that there was a prayer sought in the writ petition for declaration for a deemed permit. When this Court did not grant the relief of declaration of a deemed permit in the judgment in Ext.P9 as stated afore, it must be taken that the said prayer was refused. The contention of the deemed permit raised on behalf of the fifth respondent is accordingly rejected.

¶97

In view of the above findings of fact, these writ petitions are disposed of as follows:-

¶98

Ext.P10 certificate dated 01.10.2022 issued by the second respondent in W.P(C) No.11462/2023 is hereby quashed. The decision as seen in Ext.P7 which led to the grant of licence to the fifth respondent unit is also quashed. In view of the findings in W.P(C) No.11462/2023, the stop memo issued by the Panchayat dated—03-04-2023 is also quashed and W.P(C) No.12993/2023 is allowed in part. There will be a direction to the second respondent to reconsider the application submitted by the fifth respondent unit strictly in terms of the Kerala Industrial Single Window Clearance Board and Industrial Township Area Development Act, 1999, and the

¶99

W.P(C) Nos.11462/23 & 12993/23

¶100

:16:

¶101

Kerala Industrial Single Window Clearance Board and Industrial Township Area Development Rules, 2000, within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Before a decision is taken, the writ petitioners, the fifth respondent unit and the Panchayat shall also be heard.

¶102

Sd/-

¶103

MOHAMMED NIAS C. P., JUDGE

¶104

okb/7-7-24

¶105

//True copy// P.S. to Judge

¶106

W.P(C) Nos.11462/23 & 12993/23

¶107

:17:

¶108

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 11462/2023

¶109

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶110

EXHIBIT P1	TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 12..02..2019 IN WP©NO.22117/2018 OF THIS COURT
EXHIBIT P2	THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS COURT IN WA NO.1371/2019 DATED 20.12.2021
EXHIBIT P3	TRUE COPY OF THE REFERENCE ORDER DATED 20..12..2021 IN WA NO.1503/2019 OF THIS COURT
EXHIBIT P4	TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION OF THE PANCHAYATH COMMITTEE DATED 11..08..2016
EXHIBIT P5	TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 06..01..2022 WITHOUT DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT THROUGH GENERAL MANAGER, DISTRICT INDUSTRIES CENTRE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM IN FORM NO.A
EXHIBIT P6	TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 15..02..2022 IN WP©NO.4979/2022 OF THIS COURT
EXHIBIT P7	TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 05..05..2022
EXHIBIT P8	TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 20..05..2022 ISSUED TO THE 5TH RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P9	TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 27..07..2022 IN WP©NO.12652/2022 OF THIS COURT
EXHIBIT10	TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 01..10..2022 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 5TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P11	THE TRUE COPY OF THE LAYOUT APPROVAL (ORDER) NO.D3-6651/16/D.DIS DATED 6..8..2016
EXHIBIT12	TRUE COPY OF THE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO.A2-6945/016 DATED 6..9..2016
EXHIBIT P13	TRUE COPY OF THE COMMISSION REPORT IN WP©NO.35403/2016 DATED 11..04..2017
RESPONDENT EX	HIBITS
EXHIBIT R5(A)	TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE RESPONDENT DATED 31.3.2022
EXHIBIT R5(B)	TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT DATED 6.7.2022 IN WPC NO. 12652/2022
EXHIBIT R5(C)	TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 30-9-2016 SUBMITTED BY THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, LSGD SECTION, NAVAIKULAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT BEARING NO.AELSGD/NKM/GNL/16-17, DATED 30-9-2016
EXHIBIT R5(D)	TRUE COPY OF THE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT, DATED 6-9-2016

¶111

W.P(C) Nos.11462/23 & 12993/23

¶112

:18:

¶113

EXHIBIT R5(E) TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT NO.861/2016, DATED 22-9-2016 SUBMITTED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER TO THE SECRETARY, NAVAIKULAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT

¶114

EXHIBIT R5(F) TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING THE SITE DATED NIL EXHIBIT R5(H) TRUE COPY OF THE RENEWAL OF INTEGRATED CONSENT TO ESTABLISH DATED 28-062019 ISSUED BY THE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

¶115

EXHIBIT R5(I) TRUE COPY OF THE PERMIT APPROVING THE PLAN OF THE UNIT, TO HOUSE THE M SAND UNIT, VIDE PROCEEDING DATED 28-7-2016,

¶116

EXHIBIT R5(J) TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY DATED 29-7-2022, EXHIBIT R5(L) TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE CHIEF TOWN PLANNER,TRIVANDRUM DATED 06-08-2016

¶117

EXHIBIT R5(K) TRUE COPY OF THE NOC DATED 8/7/2016 ISSUED BY THE ASSISTANT DIVISIONAL OFFICER,TRIVANDRUM

¶118

EXHIBIT R5(G) TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE CONSENT TO ESTABLISH VIDE PROCEEDINGS DATED 10-6-2016, WITH VALIDITY UPTO 19-4-2019,ISSUED BY THE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

¶119

EXHIBIT R4(A) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.D3-6651-16-D DIS, DT.06-08-2016 OF THE CHIEF TOWN PLANNER.

¶120

EXHIBIT R4(B) TRUE COPY OF THE STOP MEMO DT.03-10-2016. EXHIBIT R4(C) TRUE COPY OF THE RESOLUTION DT.15-10-2016 OF THE PANCHAYAT COMMITTEE. EXHIBIT R4(D) TRUE COPY OF THE RESOLUTION DT.25-10-2016 OF THE PANCHAYAT COMMITTEE. EXHIBIT R4(E) TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT DT.23-11-2016 OF THE PANCHAYAT. EXHIBIT R4(F) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DT.15-05-2018 IN APPEAL NO.967/2016 OF THE TRIBUNAL IN LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶121

EXHIBIT R4(H) TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DT.20-12-2021 IN W.A NO.1371/2019 OF THE DIVISION BENCH OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.

¶122

EXHIBIT R4(K) TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE NO.A2/3346/2023, DT.03-04-2023 OF THIS RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT R4(J) TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DT.30-03-2023 SUBMITTED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT R4(I) TRUE COPY OF THE PROVISIONAL ORDER NO.A2/3346/2023, DT.30-03-2023 ISSUED BY THIS RESPONDENT TO THE 5TH RESPONDENT.

¶123

EXHIBIT R4(G) TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DT.12-02-2019 IN W.P.(C) NO.35055/2016 EXHIBIT R4(G1) TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DT.12-02-2019 IN W.P.(C) NO.22117/2018.

¶124

W.P(C) Nos.11462/23 & 12993/23

¶125

:19:

¶126

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 12993/2023

¶127

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶128

EXHIBIT P1	TRUE COPY OF THE CONSENT ISSUED BY THE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD DATED 10- 6-2016
EXHIBIT P2	TRUE COPY OF THE INTEGRATED CONSENT ISSUED BY THE KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD DATED 28-06-2019 VALIDITY UP TO 19-04-2024
EXHIBIT P3	THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY UNDER THE FACTORIES ACT, 1948, HAD GRANTED ITS PERMIT APPROVING THE PLAN OF THE UNIT, TO HOUSE THE M SAND UNIT, VIDE PROCEEDING DATED 28-07-2016
EXHIBIT P4	TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY DATED 29-7-2022
EXHIBIT P5	TRUE COPY OF THE NOC ISSUED BY THE ASSISTANT DIVISIONAL OFFICER 08-07- 2016DATED
EXHIBIT P6	PROCEEDINGS OF THE CHIEF TOWN PLANNER, TRIVANDRUM DATED 06-08-2016
EXHIBIT P7	TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED I5-2-2022 IN W.P.(C) NO.4979/2022
EXHIBIT P8	TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD, DATED 5-5-2022, PERTAINING TO THE PETITIONER'S
EXHIBIT P8(A)	TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN W.P. (C)NO.12652/2022 DATED 27-7-2022
EXHIBIT P9	TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE SINGLE WINDOW CLEARANCE BOARD
EXHIBIT P10	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 16-03-2023
EXHIBIT P10(A)	TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT ACKNOWLEDGING THE SUBMISSION
EXHIBIT P11	TRUE COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT DATED 30-3- 2023
EXHIBIT P12	TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY SANS DOCUMENTS, SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 30-3- 2023 AND SUBMITTED ON 31-3-2O23
EXHIBIT P13	TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 3L-3-2O23
EXHIBIT P14	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. A2/ 3346/2023 DATED 3-4-2023, PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P15	PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING THE SITE AND PROGRESS OF WORK
RESPONDENT EX	HIBITS
EXT.R3(A)	TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS COURT IN WA NO.1371/2019 DATED 20.12.2021.
EXT.R3(B)	TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION OF THE PANCHAYATH COMMITTEE DATED 11..08..2016

¶129

W.P(C) Nos.11462/23 & 12993/23

¶130

:20:

¶131

EXT.R3(C) TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 06..01..2022 WITHOUT DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE BOARD. EXHIBIT R1(A) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.D3-6651-16-D DIS, DT.06-08-2016 OF THE CHIEF TOWN PLANNER. EXHIBIT R1(B) TRUE COPY OF THE STOP MEMO DT.03-10-2016. EXHIBIT R1(C) TRUE COPY OF THE RESOLUTION DT.15-10-2016 OF THE PANCHAYAT COMMITTEE. EXHIBIT R1(D) TRUE COPY OF THE RESOLUTION DT.25-10-2016 OF THE PANCHAYAT COMMITTEE. EXHIBIT R1(E) TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT DT.23-11-2016 OF THE PANCHAYAT. EXHIBIT R1(F) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DT.15-05-2018 IN APPEAL NO.967/2016 OF THE TRIBUNAL IN LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. EXHIBIT R1(G) TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DT.12-02-2019 IN W.P.(C) NO.35055/2016 AND W.P.(C) NO.22117/2018. EXHIBIT R1(H) TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DT.20-12-2021 IN W.A NO.1371/2019 OF THE DIVISION BENCH OF THIS COURT.

Noushad K., v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Noushad K., 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

C.C.Hamza Haji Vs Athavanad Grama Panchayath

K.R.Sivadasan Pillai Vs the District Collector

Shahul Hameed, Vs Kochi Municipal Corporation

M/S. Moonlight Premium Sands Pvt. Ltd, Vs the Secretary

Kavitha, Vs Revenue Divisional Officer

Cicilyamma Mathew, Vs State of Kerala