LAWS(KER)-2014-3-65

BOBY UTHUP Vs. STATE OF KERALA

Decided On March 28, 2014
Boby Uthup And Another Appellant
V/S
State of Kerala represented by its Secretary And Others Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants are the Manager and Headmaster of St. Stephen's Higher Secondary School, Keerampara. The 12th respondent took steps to establish a hollow bricks unit in the land near St.Stephan's Higher Secondary School. Respondent No.12 applied to the Secretary of the Keerampara Grama Panchayat for building permit to construct a building for the purpose of the hollow bricks unit. The fourth respondent referred the matter to the Senior Town Planner. The Senior Town Planner issued an order dated 27.12.2010 (Ext.R12(a)) granting permit for the unit with the conditions mentioned therein.

(2.) The 12th respondent filed an application before the third respondent (the District Industrial Single Window Clearance Board) (hereinafter referred to as the District Board), for clearance of the necessary licence for establishing the hollow bricks unit. The District Board granted clearance to the 12th respondent, which was challenged by the appellants in W.P.(C) No.16074 of 2012. The learned Single Judge dismissed the Writ Petition, which is under challenge in this Writ Appeal.

(3.) The appellants contended that the proposed hollow bricks unit is very near to the school compound, situated at a distance of about 11 mtrs. It was also contended that the unit was established in a paddy land. According to the appellants, the District Board, which is constituted under the Kerala Industrial Single Window Clearance Boards and Industrial Township Area Development Act, 1999, would include the President of the Grama Panchayat. But on 11.5.2012, when the meeting of the District Board was held, the item concerned was taken out of agenda and a decision was rendered in favour of the 12th respondent. In that meeting of the Board, the President of the Panchayat was not present, but only a representative of the Panchayat was present. It was also contended by the appellants that the District Board has no authority to issue a deemed licence.