ELDHOSE ALIAS Vs. P.V. KURIYAKOSE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners in W.P.(C) No. 9136/2014 are the appellants W.A. No. 1715 of 2014. They challenge the judgment dated 7.11.2014 of the learned Single Judge.

(2.) W .P.(C) No. 9136/2014 was filed seeking to quash Ext. P5, a common order passed by the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions (hereinafter referred as the 'Tribunal') in Appeal No. 274/2013 and Revision Petition No. 157/2013. Appeal No. 274/2013 was filed by the 1st respondent herein challenging the decision dated 8.3.2013 of the Municipal Council, whereby the 1st respondent was denied renewal of his licence for functioning an industrial unit. Revision Petition No. 157/2013 was filed by the 1st respondent, challenging the decision dated 8.10.2013 in an appeal filed by the 1st respondent before the Municipal Council. The appeal and the revision were heard together and allowed. The decision of the Municipal Council dated 8.3.2013 was set aside and a direction was issued to the Municipality to issue licence to the 1st respondent. The revision petition was also allowed, setting aside the order dated 8.10.2013, rejecting the appeal filed by the 1st respondent.

(3.) IT was inter alia contended by the appellants before the learned Single Judge that even from the documents produced before the Tribunal, it was clear that the unit was not fit to be granted a licence. Therefore, the Tribunal was not justified in directing grant of licence or renewal thereof. It was further contended that the consent given by the Pollution Control Board did not have any sanctity, as, subsequently, the Pollution Control Board had indicated that the 1st respondent did not comply with the conditions imposed as per the consent issued and therefore when a sub committee, after site inspection, had come to the clear finding that the unit cannot be permitted to function on account of severe pollution, the Tribunal was not justified in taking a contrary view. The materials produced before the Tribunal have not been considered and the decision taken as per Ext. P5 is arbitrary and not based on the materials available on record.