S.NIZARUDEEN Vs. GENERAL MANAGER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is an Ex-service man and he owns an extent of 13.25 Ares of land comprised in various survey numbers in Pallickal Village. Near the property, there is an extent of 01.10609 hectares of barren land described as 'Sarkar Para Tharisu' which is suitable for quarrying. The petitioner wants to have a quarrying unit there and he therefore made an application for NOC before the District Collector. After completing various formalities, a report was submitted by the Tahsildar as per Exhibit P1. The petitioner was thereafter directed to produce the required statutory licenses from the Pollution Control Board as well as from the Panchayat. It is stated that after the same was produced, another person filed a Writ Petition as W.P.(C) No.2069/2011 wherein the District Collector was directed to pass appropriate orders after hearing the petitioner therein also. Finally, by Exhibit P2, the petitioner was granted mining permit. There was a further direction to obtain short firer's certificate, explosive licence, consent from the pollution control board and licence from the Panchayat. He was also directed to pay royalty as well as liability of predecessor. The validity period of the same was for one year and thereafter the petitioner paid the royalty amount of Rs.1,59,376.00 as well as arrears of royalty which remained unpaid by the previous licensee. Exhibit P3 is the proceedings of the Geologist granting quarrying permit. It is also stated that the petitioner has obtained all the statutory licenses. Initially, the Panchayat rejected the application for licence filed under Section 233 of the Panchayat Raj Act. They have taken an objection with regard to the NOC obtained by the petitioner, which resulted in the petitioner approaching the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions. The Tribunal issued certain directions and thereafter the petitioner filed another application and the Panchayat Committee finally rejected it again as per Exhibit P5. It is submitted that Panchayat committee did not consider various aspects.

(2.) THE matter was re-heard by the Deputy Collector. It appears that an application was filed under the Right to Information Act to get the details of the proceedings and the same was obtained as per Exhibit P6(a). The petitioner challenged Exhibit P5 before this Court and by judgment in W.P.(C)No.14707/12, this Court set aside the said order by directing the Panchayat to pass fresh orders. The petitioner has produced Exhibit P7 NOC issued by the District Medical Officer also. The Panchayat again rejected the application for permit as per Exhibit P8. It is stated that the same is without any justification. The petitioner thereafter approached the Kerala Industrial Single Window Clearance Board under the Industrial Township Area Development Act and the Clearance Board took up the application and as per Exhibit P9 order, the application was rejected on the ground that the revenue authority has cancelled the NOC granted to the petitioner. The petitioner again approached the District Collector who has issued Exhibit P10 proceedings withdrawing the prohibitory order.

(3.) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.