SUDHEER.S Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This case unveils the poignant story of two entrepreneurs whose dream to start an industrial unit with most modern machinery was stifled, not by law or authorities who have to decide whether there is any chance of pollution or environmental problems, but by the tumult of a handful of neighbours residing about 150 meters away from the unit and consequently the representatives of the local authority are afraid to take a decision in accordance with law. Our state, Kerala, is known as God's Own Country. It is famous for its lush green beauty. But the state also wants industries that don't affect this natural charm. However, there is a general allegation that industries will not progress in Kerala because of people's protests and trade unionism, but, in reality, our industrial growth has been commendable in recent times. The credit goes to all Keralites and, of course, to political parties and their leaders who were in power at different periods, irrespective of the colour of their parties, and who always convinced the people of the necessity of industries in our state for our economic growth. But these isolated instances will definitely discourage entrepreneurs from investing in our state. Some political parties and elected representatives fear that siding with industry in an area will cost them their vote bank there. This is the General Election time in Kerala. The political parties and the candidates should tell the electorate and get their mandate by saying that, if they are elected, no entrepreneur in Kerala who has obtained all statutory clearances from all authorities, including pollution and environment authorities, will be forced to close down their unit because of the protest of a handful of people if their apprehension has no basis. It is the duty of the elected representatives to convince the electorate at the time of the election itself that, once statutory clearance is obtained, nothing will happen, and industrial growth is the need of the hour in our state. As I said earlier, this is a sad story of two entrepreneurs who invested crores of rupees in establishing a Hotmix Plant. The present case presents the predicament of an entrepreneur who, in compliance with all known statutory prescriptions, invested several crores of rupees to establish an industrial unit in the State. The records disclose that he secured all necessary licenses, clearances, and permits from the competent authorities after undergoing a prolonged and exacting scrutiny. It is not in dispute that no violation of environmental norms, pollution standards or other statutory violations has been alleged by any statutory authority. The unit, though complete in all physical respects with most modern machinery, has not been permitted to commence operations by the local Grama Panchayat due to public protests. What was conceived as an economic activity has been reduced to a vast, voiceless structure of concrete and steel due to public protest, which lacks scientific or environmental backing. The gates that were designed to open daily for workmen now remain locked, guarding only the idle machinery and gathering dust. But the papers before this Court reveal a deeper loss, the steady erosion of confidence in the rule of law. When approvals granted under the existing legal framework are rendered meaningless by extra-legal pressure, the very legitimacy of that framework is called into question. Public dissent has its rightful place in a constitutional democracy, but without a lawful basis, a venture that satisfies every statutory command cannot be shut down on the basis of public protest. If such a course is tolerated, investment will be deterred, employment opportunities will wither, and law-abiding enterprises will be taught the wrong lesson that compliance is not protection. The petitioner's grievance is therefore not merely personal; it reflects a systemic concern that governmental assurances, once acted upon, may evaporate at the threshold of implementation. It is this concern that now requires judicial address in this Writ Petition.

(2.) I will narrate the facts in brief: The first petitioner, Sudheer. S, has intended to start a proprietary concern of a Drum Mix Plant of 20 KW. For the purpose of establishing the said proprietary hot mix plant, the 1 st petitioner has filed an application under Sec. 233 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act, 1994') before the 1st respondent Panchayat. The 1st respondent, as per Ext.P5 letter, sought a report from the District Medical Officer and, as per Ext.P6 letter, sought a report from the Kerala State Pollution Control Board (hereinafter referred to as 'PCB'). The District Medical Officer, as per Ext.P7, informed that there is no objection to the establishment of the industrial unit. The PCB had issued consent to operate, as evident from Ext.P8 on 4/5/2017. Since the 1st petitioner had filed an application to establish the unit on 6/2/2017 and no intimation was issued within 30 days by the Panchayat, it is the case of the petitioners that the 1st petitioner has been deemed to have obtained permission under Sec. 236 of the Act, 1994, to establish the unit as a proprietary concern. Hence, the 1st petitioner had established the hot mix plant in the year 2017, is the submission. But, as per the decision dtd. 10/5/2017, as evident from Ext.P9, the Panchayat Committee rejected the application of the 1st petitioner on the ground that there was a public protest. Ext.P10 is the intimation issued by the Secretary of the Panchayat to the petitioner. According to the petitioners, since the 1st petitioner submitted an application on 6/2/2017 for establishing a proprietary concern, and no intimation was issued within 30 days, the said permission is deemed to have been granted under Sec. 236 of the Act, 1994, dehors Ext.P10.

(3.) Hence, aggrieved by Ext.P10, the petitioner filed a revision before the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal') and the Tribunal stayed Ext.P10 by order dtd. 16/5/2017, as evident by Ext.P11. Despite Ext.P11, the Panchayat issued a stop memo to the petitioner on 29/5/2017, as evident from Ext.P12. On the basis of Ext.P12 stop memo, some of the persons who have an axe to grind against the petitioner have obstructed the functioning of the unit, is the submission. Therefore, the petitioner approached this Court and this Court, as per Ext.P.13 judgment, granted police protection for the functioning of the 1st petitioner's proprietary concern, is the further submission.