DEVASSYA SEBASTIAN Vs. JAIMON JAMES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RESPONDENTS 3 and 5 in W.P.(C) No.11730 of 2013 are the appellants. Writ petition was filed by the 1st respondent in the appeal. Following are the prayers sought by the writ petitioner:

(2.) BRIEFLY put, the case of the writ petitioner before the learned Single Judge was as follows: Pursuant to Ext.P9 judgment of this Court petitioner completed all the necessary works and complied with the directions issued by the 2nd respondent in Ext.P8 and thereafter submitted Ext.P10 application as early as on 08.04.2013 requesting to renew the license. Though more than three weeks have elapsed after submission of Ext.P10 the 2nd respondent has so far not chosen to grant permission to the petitioner to conduct a trial run of the unit. Tis is per se illegal. This is more so in the light of the opinion of the 4th respondent as reflected in Ext.P12 prepared pursuant to the joint inspection conducted on 18.04.2013 by respondents 2 and 4. Though the exclusive jurisdiction to decide on the question of renewal of license is with the 2nd respondent in terms of Section 236(7) and (8) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, the 2nd respondent unnecessarily and without jurisdiction placed the issue of renewal of license before the committee of the 1st respondent Panchayat. The committee of the 1st respondent Panchayat thereafter passed Ext.P13 resolution which is totally without sanction of law. Though the petitioner submitted Ext.P14 letter requesting the 2nd respondent to permit the petitioner to conduct the trial run of the unit to enable the 4th respondent to assess the noise and dust levels at nearby residential locations the 2nd respondent is pleading helplessness in the matter on account of the intervention of the committee members of the 1st respondent Grama Panchayat. The petitioner, as already pointed out has invested more than Rupees five lakhs for complying with the directions in Ext.P8. The unit is set up on funds borrowed from various financial institutions and the outstanding loan amount comes to more than Rs.50 lakhs. The unit in question has been functioning from 1996 onwards without giving room for any complaint from any quarters. More over the 4th respondent has clearly opined that the control measures provided by M/s.Vallithottathil Industries is satisfactory to attain the noise and dust standards at nearby residential locations. In this view of the matter the 2nd respondent is obliged in law to have permitted the petitioner to conduct a trial run of the unit for at least a period of two weeks so as to enable the 4th respondent to measure the noise and dust levels at nearby residential locations. Ext.P14 request made by the petitioner has not evoked any response. Therefore the petitioner is justified in requesting this Court to require the 2nd respondent to grant permission to the petitioner to run the metal crusher unit (both primary and secondary) at least for a period of two weeks and this Court may further be pleased to direct the 4th respondent to monitor the noise and dust levels at nearby residential locations after the petitioner's unit commences its trial run and submit a report to the 2nd respondent.

(3.) WE heard learned Senior Counsel for the appellants and 1st respondent and the learned counsel for the Panchayat and the Pollution Control Board.