CHACKO THOMMY Vs. RAMAPURAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) EXT .P12 is the application submitted by the petitioner before the first respondent Grama Panchayat under Rule 12 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj (Issue of Licence to Dangerous and Offensive Trades and Factories) Rules, 1996, seeking permission to establish a quarrying unit in a property owned by him. Ext.P11 is the application submitted by the petitioner seeking licence for the operation of the proposed quarrying unit. On receipt of the said applications, the Secretary of the Panchayat had conducted an enquiry and reported to the Panchayat that the licences sought for by the petitioner can be granted. Ext.P15 is the report of the Secretary of the Panchayat. According to the petitioner, since the Panchayat has not considered Exts.P11 and P12 applications within the time prescribed by the statute, Exts.P11 and P12 applications shall be deemed to have been allowed, as provided for under Section 236(3) of the Panchayat Raj Act. He, therefore, seeks directions to the Panchayat to permit him to operate the quarrying unit.

(2.) A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Panchayat, stating that the Panchayat has rejected the licences sought for by the petitioner on account of the objections raised by the people in the locality of the proposed quarry. Ext.R2(a) is the decision taken by the Panchayat. According to the Panchayat, in view of Ext.R2 (a) decision, petitioner is not entitled to the relief sought for in the Writ Petition.

(3.) COMING to Ext.R2(a) decision, it is worth referring to the relevant statutory provisions. Sub sections (3) and (4) of Section 233 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act are the provisions relevant in the context. The said provisions read as follows :