K S SANTHOSHKUMAR Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners in W.P (c) No.17966/2011 are challenging Ext.P14 installation permission granted by the

(2.) ND respondent Grama Panchayat (hereinafter referred to as 'Grama Panchayat' for short) to the 9th respondent for establishment of Granite crushing unit. The 9th respondent is the Managing Partner of 7th respondent firm (hereinafter referred to as 'firm' for short). The petitioners are also challenging Ext.P32 order passed by the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions dismissing the appeal filed against Ext.P14. The 1st petitioner in W.P (c) No.17966/2011 is the 2nd petitioner in W.P (c) No.26791/2011. The said writ petition is filed along with two others seeking direction against the Grama Panchayat for consideration and disposal of Ext.P12 complaint submitted alleging that the firm is establishing the Crusher unit in violation of the terms of the permissions granted. Inter alia the petitioners are seeking direction to the Grama Panchayat to ensure that the firm is carrying out the construction activities strictly in accordance with the terms of the installation permission. W.P (c) No.4605/2012 is filed by the Managing Partner of the firm seeking to quash Ext.P8 proceedings issued by Secretary of the Grama Panchayat, intimating that the renewal of licence cannot be granted due to pendency of cases before this court and before the Ombudsman for Local Self Government Institutions. In that writ petition petitioner is also seeking direction for implementation of the order passed by the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions as well as for implementation of the directions contained in Ext.P6 judgment of this court in W.P (c) No.7768/2011, dated 04-07-2011. Inter alia the petitioner is seeking direction against the Grama Panchayat for consideration and disposal of the application for renewal of licence, notwithstanding pendency of W.P (c) No.17966/2011 and W.P (c) No.26791/2011. 2. Heard; Sri. P. Haridas and Sri. A.X. Vargheese, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in W.P (c) No.17966/2011 and W.P (c) No.26791/2011 respectively. Sri. V. Rajendran (Perumbavoor) learned counsel appearing for the Grama Panchayat as well as Sri. Jobi Jose Kondody, counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P (c) No.4605/2012 were also heard.

(3.) THE main challenge in W.P (c) No.17966/2011 is against the appellate order passed by the Tribunal. The appeal was filed against the installation permission granted under Section 233 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act. The Tribunal specifically found that there existed a licence granted in favour of the earlier owner for running a crushing unit in the very same property, which was renewed upto the year 2009-2010. It was also observed that the consent granted by the Kerala State Pollution Control Board for the said unit was valid upto 16-04-2011. The Tribunal further noticed that the firm had obtained no objection certificates and consents from the Fire and Rescue Department, the Pollution Control Board and the District Medical Officer. The Tribunal further noticed that firm had also obtained approval from the Single Window Clearance Board. Contentions were raised before the Tribunal that consent granted by the Pollution Control Board was irregular, because the unit had violated parameters prescribed through circulars issued in this regard (which are produced as Exts.P9 and P10 in W.P (c) No.26791/2011). The consent of the Pollution Control Board was granted without taking note of the prohibitory limits of 200 meters distance from any residences prescribed under the circulars, was the contention. But the Tribunal found that the unit in question was purchased by the firm from its earlier owner, who was holding licence from the year 1991 onwards. Hence it is found that the criteria prescribed regarding distance, which was introduced only from 08-10-2007 onwards, will not apply to the unit in question. However, the Tribunal found that the challenge is only against the installation of permission and for running of the unit the firm had approached the Secretary of the Grama Panchayat, who in turn has to conduct inspection inorder to satisfy compliance of all the requirements of law and all the conditions stipulated in the installation permissions. While dismissing the appeal the Tribunal noticed that the President of the Powra Samithy, Kottayam had already challenged the consent to operate issued by the Pollution Control Board, in appeal. Therefore, it was observed that if the appellate authority finds that the consent to operate is not granted legally, the Panchayat will be free to cancel the installation permit granted. Hence the appeal is dismissed subject to the above observations.