LAWS(KER)-2013-7-342

BOBY UTHUP; GEEMON PHILIPOSE Vs. STATE OF KERALA; DISTRICT COLLECTOR; DISTRICT INDUSTRIAL SINGLE WINDOW CLEARANCE BOARD; KEERAMPARA GRAMA PANCHAYAT; PRESIDENT; ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER AND ORS

Decided On July 22, 2013
Boby Uthup; Geemon Philipose Appellant
V/S
State Of Kerala; District Collector; District Industrial Single Window Clearance Board; Keerampara Grama Panchayat; President; Environmental Engineer And Ors Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners are the Manager and Head Master of the St.Stephens Educational Agency which runs a Higher Secondary school. They challenge the proceedings of the Single Window Clearance Board at Ext.P7 and an order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer at Ext.P13 vacating a prohibitory order issued against the 12th respondent.

(2.) The facts involved in the case would disclose that the 12th respondent intended to start a hollow bricks manufacturing unit in the neighbouring property of the school compound. The 12th respondent had obtained all licences/permission from the single window clearance board constituted under the provisions of the Kerala Industrial Single Window Clearance Board and Industrial Township Area Development Act 1999 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Development Act'). There is no dispute regarding the fact that the petitioner was given such a licence by the Single Window Clearance Board. The petitioners impugn the said order specifically on four grounds. The first contention raised is that though the District Boards are constituted which includes the President of the Grama Panchayath in terms of Section 4 of the Development Act, on a perusal of Ext.P7 it could be seen that the application of the 12th respondent for licence was not in the agenda during the meeting held on that date and the said item was taken as a special item. Therefore, the President of the Panchayath could not attend the said meeting and the Panchayath was represented only by a Lower Division Clerk who cannot object to the grant of such licence. It is therefore the contention that the licence had been issued without notice to the Panchayath and without hearing the Panchayath authorities.

(3.) The second contention raised is on the allegation that the Single Window Clearance Board has no power to grant a deemed licence. If at all the District Board has the power to grant the licence in terms of Section 8 of the Act they should verify as to whether the application contains such details as may be prescribed under the Panchayath Raj Act for the purpose of enabling the Single Window Clearance Board to recommend grant of licence.