SOUTHERN REFINERIES LTD Vs. PARASSALA GRAMA PANCHAYAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner herein is a Public Limited Company. The petitioner challenges the action of the 1st respondent Panchayat in refusing to renew the license to conduct its factory located within the limits of the 1st respondent Panchayat. The Panchayat has refused to renew the license alleging that due to the pollution caused by the working of the factory, a number of people living in the vicinity have fallen sick. There is a further allegation that the water in the wells nearby has been contaminated by the presence of oil. There has been a public outcry and agitation against the company. Therefore, the Panchayat has, considering all the above aspects, declined to renew the license to the petitioner's factory. The petitioner has approached this Court aggrieved by the said action.

(2.) THE petitioner is engaged in the process of refining waste oil or used oil in its factory. The factory was established in the year 1993. In 1995, the 1st respondent Panchayat refused to renew the license of the petitioner. Thereupon, the petitioner had approached this Court by filing W.P(c) No.3294 of 1995. The said Writ Petition was allowed by this Court by Ext.P1 judgment. The Panchayat was directed to renew the license of the petitioner, provided the necessary permission or consent was obtained from the 2nd respondent - the Kerala State Pollution Control Board. According to the petitioner, the 2nd respondent has granted the necessary consent to the petitioner. Ext.P2 consent was valid till June, 2012. Despite the grant of Ext.P2 consent, the application for renewal submitted by the petitioner on 05.01.2011 was rejected by Ext.P8. The petitioner thereupon filed this Writ Petition challenging Ext.P8. The contention of the petitioner is that, since no orders were passed on its application for license by the Panchayat within the period of 30 days stipulated by Section 236 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short), the petitioner had become entitled to the benefit of the deemed license that is stipulated by sub section 3 of Section 236. Therefore, the issue of Ext.P8, after the deemed license had accrued to the petitioner, was of no consequence, it is contended. In view of the fact that the petitioner was entitled to the benefit of a deemed license, the factory continued to function in spite of Ext.P8 rejection of the application for renewal. In the above circumstances, as per Ext.P10 stop memo dated 19.11.2011, the petitioner was directed to stop functioning of the factory. Accordingly, the factory was closed and continues to remain closed to this date.

(3.) IN the Writ Petition, as per order dated 12.04.2012, this Court had directed the petitioner to obtain consent from the Pollution Control Board and to move the Panchayat thereafter for renewal of the license. The request for renewal was also directed to be considered. Accordingly, the petitioner requested the Pollution Control Board to conduct an inspection. An inspection was thereupon conducted and by Ext.P20 dated 19.04.2012, the petitioner was directed by the Pollution Control Board to comply with certain conditions. Among others, the petitioner was directed to provide Bio Filters for reducing the problem of odour. The sand filter and soak pit system were directed to be maintained properly. As per Ext.P21, the petitioner informed the Pollution Control Board that, the directions in Ext.P20 would be complied with. Information of the conditions stipulated was communicated to the Panchayat by the Pollution Control Board as per Ext.P22 dated 28.04.2012. Thereafter, by an interim order dated 15.06.2012, this Court directed that the petitioner shall be permitted to enter the factory for complying with the directions of the Pollution Control Board. On the Pollution Control Board confirming compliance with its directions, it was ordered that the Panchayat shall consider and pass orders on the application for renewal of license submitted by the petitioner.