M.V.JOY Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The functioning of a metal crusher unit situated on the adjacent property of the petitioner is questioned in this writ petition. Petitioner challenges Ext.P33 order of the Tribunal for Local Self-Government Institutions, declining to interfere with the licence granted to conduct the aforesaid metal crusher and has also sought a declaration that the said establishment is not entitled to get a licence.

(2.) Petitioner resides adjacent to a metal crusher unit named 'M/s.Robust Granites' presently conducted by the seventh respondent. According to the petitioner, the said industry was started in 1993 by one Sri. Najeeb with a limited capacity of 40HP motor, that too as a secondary metal crusher unit. Petitioner alleges that after the establishment was sold to the eighth respondent, he applied for a building permit as per Ext.P2 dtd. 28/5/2008, for construction of a building for installing a primary crusher unit of 45 HP in Survey No.439/5 of Kizhakkambalam Village. The said application was forwarded to the Chief Town Planner (for short 'CTP') who granted approval as per Ext.P9 on 15/10/2010 for the layout and usage with the condition to provide a 7-metre access width to the establishment. Petitioner alleges that the said 7-metre access width is not available and the establishment is being carried on illegally.

(3.) The eighth respondent, in the meantime, sold the unit to the seventh respondent, who is presently running the establishment, and the mandatory access width is unavailable. It is also pleaded that the minimum open area of 7.5 metres required around the building is yet to be maintained and therefore the conduct of the primary crusher is illegal. When the Panchayat had, without verifying any of the relevant factors, granted a licence, petitioner questioned the same, initially before the Panchayat Committee and later before the Tribunal. However, by Ext.P33 order, the Tribunal rejected the challenge. Petitioner alleges that the seventh respondent has illegally constructed a huge building without authority and has expanded his industry without complying with the relevant mandatory provisions while the Secretary of the Panchayat has, without verifying any of the statutory requirements, granted permission to conduct the establishment. Petitioner has also pleaded that permissions have been obtained by the seventh respondent by fraud and misrepresentation and in collusion with the fifth respondent and hence the licences issued ought to be cancelled under Sec. 236(9) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (for short 'the Act').