T L GEORGE Vs. JACOB MATHEW

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the counsel for the petitioner.

(2.) PETITIONER was running a quarry in two acres of land in Sy. No.780/3 of Manjalloor Village. Against the licence which was granted to the petitioner by the Panchayat, the first respondent filed an appeal before the Tribunal and in Ext.P1 order, the Tribunal directed the Panchayat to consider the matter afresh. Accordingly, the petitioner submitted Exts.P2 to P6 documents before the Panchayat and finally Panchayat issued Exts.P7 and P8 permit and licence. That action was challenged by the first respondent in Appeal No.13/2012 before the Tribunal.

(3.) ALTHOUGH the contention raised by the learned Senior counsel is that the Tribunal ought to have considered the merits of the other contentions raised, still having regard to the nature of the conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal in Ex.P11 order I cannot find fault with it. A reading of this order shows that although a report under Section 233(3) was made by the Secretary of the Panchayat, the Tribunal found that the Secretary did not properly inspect the site or given the required factual details to the committee before the impugned decision was taken.