JALALUDEEN Vs. VELIYAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition was tagged along with WP(C) No.17994 of 2023 and with the consent of the parties, the same is untagged and is posted for hearing separately.

(2.) The petitioner is a grantee of Ext.P1 Letter of Intent by the Geologist, Department of Mining and Geology, Kollam for conducting quarrying operations with respect to an extent of 71.61 Ares of land comprised in Survey Nos.30/3-2, 30/3-3, 30/3-4, 30/14, 37/5-1, 37/5-2 and 37/5-3 of Veliyam Village, Kottarakkara Taluk, Kollam District. Ext.P2 is the approved mining plan, Ext. P3 is the Environmental Clearance issued by the State Environment Impact Assessment Authority, Ext.P4 is the Explosive Licence and Ext. P5 is the Consent to Operate issued by the Pollution Control Board. The petitioner states that on receipt of the above statutory licences and permissions, he approached the 2nd respondent, the Secretary of the 1st respondent Panchayat by filing Ext.P6 application for licence under Ss. 232 and 233 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 [for brevity, 'the Act'], on 13/2/2023. Ext.P7 is the receipt issued in acknowledgment of Ext.P6 application. It is stated by the petitioner that the 2nd respondent has not issued any communication to him within 30 days of submission of the application, either rejecting or allowing the same and that he is, therefore, entitled for a deemed licence as contemplated under Ss. 236(3) and 233(6) of the Act. Accordingly, the petitioner has filed this writ petition for a declaration that Ext.P6 application has been crystalised into a deemed licence by operation of law by virtue of Ss. 236(3) and 233(6) of the Act.

(3.) A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondents 1 and 2, wherein it is stated that Ext.P6 application was not properly filled up and the petitioner failed to furnish the required details in the relevant columns. It is also stated that the petitioner failed to produce No Objection Certificate from the Mining and Geology Department and the property deed where he is intending to conduct the quarrying activity. Accordingly, Ext.R1(a) letter was issued to the petitioner on 25/2/2023 by the Office of the 2nd respondent, through ordinary post, asking him to cure those defects. The 2nd respondent has also produced a copy of the Despatch-cum-Stamp Account Register (Ext.R1(b)) to show that Ext.R1(a) was despatched to the petitioner on 25/2/2023. On the basis of Ext.R1(a), the 2nd respondent states that since the application of the petitioner was defective and the said fact was communicated to him within 30 days from the date of receipt of Ext.P6, he is not entitled for any deemed licence. It is stated that there is protest from the local residents against granting licence to the petitioner's quarry and that there is a water tank installed by the Kerala Water Authority near the proposed quarry. It is further stated that despite pointing out the defects in Ext.R1(a), except for producing certain documents including the title deeds, other defects were not cured by the petitioner. Later, during the pendency of this writ petition, the application of the petitioner was rejected vide Ext.R1(d) dtd. 12/1/2024, a copy of which has been produced along with a statement. In Ext.R1(d), it is stated that Ext.P6 application has been rejected for the reason that it is incomplete and not in the proper form.