SREEKANDAN B. Vs. VELLARADA GRAMA PANCHAYAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has set up a temporary hotmix plant after obtaining Ext.P1 consent from the Pollution Control Board. He also obtained Ext.P2 acknowledgement certificate under the provisions of the Kerala Micro Small and Medium Enterprises Facilitation Act, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as the 2019 Act). As per Ext.P2 certificate, the petitioner is exempted from obtaining any permission under any of the State enactments for a period of three years. The petitioner was issued Ext.P3 by the 2nd respondent Panchayat directing him not to operate the hotmix plant without obtaining licenses under Ss. 232 and 233 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as the 1994 Act). According to the petitioner, in view of Ext.P2 certificate, he is not obliged to obtain any licence under any of the provisions of the the 1994 Act for a period of three years. The writ petition has been filed challenging Ext.P3 issued by the Panchayat.

(2.) The 3rd respondent in the writ petition is a neighbour, who has property adjacent to the site where the hotmix plant is put up by the petitioner. The 3rd respondent has filed a counter affidavit wherein it is stated that the area is a thickly populated area and the hotmix plant is a mega construction with high profile equipments operating on 130 HP and that it is an industry specified in the first schedule to the Industries Development and Regulation Act, 1951 as contemplated in Sec. 7 of the Micro Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006. According to the 3rd respondent, the hotmix plant is beyond the domain of 2019 Act which had adopted by incorporation and reference the Micro Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006. According to the 3rd respondent, the petitioner is obliged to obtain a permission for development of the land and permit for setting up the hotmix plant and to obtain the D&O licence as mandated by the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act. It is further submitted that Ext.P2 acknowledgement certificate has been wrongly issued, since it is not relating to an industry to which the 2019 Act applies.

(3.) The petitioner has filed a reply affidavit in which it is stated that the petitioner is operating a small enterprise as defined in Sec. 7 of the Micro Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 and can be classified under Item 1(B) and 19(40) of Schedule 1 of the Industries Development and Regulation Act, 1951. It is also submitted that the petitioner has already applied to the 2nd respondent under Rule 68 of the Kerala Panchayat Building Rules, 2019 seeking permission to install the hotmix plant and the application is produced as Ext.P6. It is submitted that in view of the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in Tomy Thomas v. State of Kerala reported in [2019 (3) KLT 987], the 2nd respondent cannot refuse such permission, since the petitioner has already secured consent from the Pollution Control Board.