V.V. MOIDEEN Vs. KUNNATHUNAD GRAMA PANCHAYAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is an unemployed person having no other source of income. He wanted to start a Metal Crusher Unit as a Small Scale Industry. On rejection of his earlier application at the hands of the respondent, the petitioner took up the matter in revision before the Government under Sec. 144(3) of the Kerala Panchayat Act, challenging the legality of the decision refusing to grant the licence. Thereupon, the Secretary to Government, Local Administration (C) Department, after seeking clarification in the matter from the Panchayat and after examining the records and on the basis of the report of the Secretary of the Panchayat found that the decision of the Panchayat Committee declining to grant licence to the petitioner is illegal and improper and was pleased to set aside the same. Thereafter, the respondent Panchayat granted licence to the petitioner and pursuant to the licence, the petitioner has been operating the unit till 31.3.1995. On expiry of the licence on 31.3.1995, petitioner submitted an application for renewal before the respondent to which he received Exts. P3, P4 and P6 reply. In Ext. P3 dated 30.3.1996, the petitioner is informed that he has remitted the fees for renewal of licence un-authorisedly and the same should be received back from the Panchayat. He is also informed, as per Ext. P3, that necessary certificates from the District Medical Officer of health as well as the consent from the Kerala State Pollution Control Board should be produced before the respondent Panchayat on the same day itself the respondent Panchayat has issued Ext. P4 letter informing the petitioner that he should not conduct the metal crusher unit. Pursuant to Exts. P3 and P4, petitioner has produced necessary certificates from the District Medical Officer of Heath as well as the consent from the Kerala State Pollution Control Board and was anxiously awaiting favourable orders from the Panchayat. However, to his consternation, he received Ext. P6 communication dated 18.10.1996 from the Panchayat informing him that the President of the Panchayat alone is vested with the powers to issue licence to the unit in question and that his application along with the necessary reports have been placed before the President for further action.

(2.) Under the facts and circumstances thus disclosed, the petitioner has approached this court for the issuance of a writ of mandamus commanding the respondent to renew the licence of the petitioner and for a declaration that the Panchayat is not empowered to prescribe any new conditions for the renewal of the petitioner's licence.

(3.) When the O.P. came up for admission on 20.11.1996 notice by special messenger was ordered to the respondent, and when the O.P. came up for further hearing today, the respondent is represented by learned counsel. Learned counsel for the respondent on instruction submits that appropriate orders on the petitioner's application for renewal of licence will be passed by the President of the respondent-Panchayat within one week from today. This submission is recorded. However, certain points require clarification. Respondent has no case either in Exts. P3, P4 or P6 that the petitioner is not eligible for renewal of licence on account of the objection raised by the local inhabitants. As a matter of fact, when the petitioner made his efforts to establish the unit in 1995, certain persons of the locality raised objections. In fact the matter was taken to this court at the instance of those objections in O.P. 1713/1994-G which resulted in Ext. P1 judgment negativing the objections raised by the local inhabitatents and upholding the claim of the petitioner for grant of licence. If that be so, I do not think that the respondent will be justified in urging the objections raised by the local inhabitants as a ruse for refusal to renewal licence. The objections raised by the local inhabitants having been negatived by this court as per Ext. P.I. judgment which has become final (Writ Appeal also dismissed) the respondent cannot rake up that issue at this stage as a ground for refusal to renew the licence. Moreover, such an objection which is not reflected in any of the impugned proceedings viz. Exts. P3, P4 and P6 cannot be permitted to be raised in the counter-affidavit. Reason for refusal to renew the licence must be mentioned in the impugned proceedings itself and not at a later stage when the aggrieved party takes the matter to the court. The action of the public authority must be judged by the reasons stated in the proceedings impugned and not otherwise.