Writ petition sought quashing of a clearance/sanction permitting a plywood factory and action by the Panchayath. As the factory had already been shifted to new premises, the court found the prayers infructuous and dismissed the petition.
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.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF JUNE 2024 / 15TH JYAISHTA, 1946 WP(C) NO. 2171 OF 2021
PETITIONER:
SARAMMA THOMAS
AGED 65 YEARS, W/O. LATE THOMAS, KOORAN THAZHATHUPARAMBIL HOUSE, PARAKKADAVU VILLAGE, KARUKUTTY P.O., MAMBRA-683 576.
BY ADVS. SAIBY JOSE KIDANGOOR SRI.BENNY ANTONY PAREL SMT.S.SIBHA SHRI.ANOOP SEBASTIAN SMT.DEEPA VALENTINE LESLIE SHRI.VENKETESH BOSE
RESPONDENTS:
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 033.
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, KURUMASSERY P.O., MOOZHIKULAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-683 579.
2
WP(C) NO.2171 OF 2021
EDANAPARAMBIL HOUSE, VATTAKKATTUPADY, PERUMBAVOOR P.O., ERNAKULAM, KERALA-683 542.
BY ADVS. SRI. M. RAJEEVAN, GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. T. NAVEEN, SC SRI.ANOOP.V.NAIR SRI. N.K.SUBRAMANIAN -R6 SRI. N.C.MOHANAN SRI. ABRAHAM MATHAN SRI. ATHUL TOM
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05.06.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO.2171 OF 2021
3
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
W.P.(C) No.2171 of 2021
Dated this the 05th day of June, 2024
JUDGMENT
The above writ petition is filed with the following
prayers:
“i) Issue a writ of certiorari or appropriate writ or direction directing the 3rd respondent Panchayath to call for the records leading up to the sanction granted by the 2nd respondent in favour of the 6th respondent as evident from Exhibit P1 and quash the same.
ii) Issue a Writ of Mandamus or appropriate direction directing the 3rd respondent Panchayath to act upon Exhibit Pl in accordance with law forthwith.
iii) Grant such other and incidental reliefs as this Honourable Court may deem just and necessary on
4
WP(C) NO.2171 OF 2021
the facts and circumstances of this case;
And
iv) Allow this writ petition (civil) with costs to the petitioner.”SIC
2. When this writ petition came up for
consideration on 02.11.2021, this Court passed the
following order:
“Admit. In view of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the 3rd respondent and the documents produced along with the writ petition, there will be an interim direction to the respondents to see that the unit of the 6th respondent does not function without all due clearance and permissions as required under law.”
14.12.2021, which is also extracted hereunder:
The writ petition has been filed against starting of the plywood factory by the 6th respondent. This Court had on 02.11.2021 directed the respondents to see that the unit of the 6th
WP(C) NO.2171 OF 2021
5
respondent does not function without all due clearances and permissions as required under law. The 6th respondent thereafter filed a petition seeking to vacate the interim order and also submitted that at present the unit is not functioning.
2. The 6th respondent has filed I.A. Nos. 3 & 4 of 2021. In 1.A.No.3 of 2021, the prayer is for permitting production of Exts.R6(h) and R6(i). Ext.R6(h) is a consent from the Pollution Control Board Issued on 30.11.2021 and Ext.R6(i) is an acknowledgment certificate dated 29.11.2021 issued under the Kerala Micro Small Medium Enterprises Facilitation Act, 2019. 1.A.No. 3 of 2021 is allowed.
3. In I.A.No.4 of 2021, the 6th respondent has sought for a direction to the respondents 1 to 5 to permit them to shift the machineries and materials to the new premises where they intend to start the unit. The interim order issued by this Court does not in any way prohibit such shifting of the premises since the writ petition itself concerns with starting of the unit in the premises objected to by the writ petitioner. In the above circumstances, respondents 1 to 5 are directed to permit the petitioner to shift the machineries and materials to the new premises.”
6
WP(C) NO.2171 OF 2021
6th respondent submitted that the Factory is already
shifted to the new premises. If that be the case, the
prayers in this writ petition are infructuous.
Therefore, this writ petition is dismissed as
infructuous.
Sd/-
nvj
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE
1 issue framed by the court
Should the sanction granted to the 6th respondent's plywood factory be quashed and the Panchayath directed to act on Exhibit P1?
Saramma Thomas
State of Kerala, represented by Principal Secretary, Department of Local Self Government
Kerala State Single Window Clearance Board
General Manager, District Industries Centre, Ernakulam
Parakkadav Panchayath
Shiny Azeez
P.V.Kunhikrishnan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
