CHERUKAT FATHIMA Vs. EDAVANNA GRAMA PANCHAYATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The grievance of the petitioners is that the 4th respondent is conducting a furniture factory without obtaining any licence whatsoever from the 1st respondent-Panchayat and without obtaining consent from the third respondent, the Pollution Control Board.

(2.) Even though pleadings have not been raised by any of the respondents, all of them appear through counsel. I have heard the submissions of Mr.Sajeevkumar K.Gopal, counsel for the petitioners, Mr.V.K.Sunil, counsel for the 4th respondent, Mr.K.M.Sathianatha Menon, counsel for the 1st respondent-Panchayat, Mr.M.K.Chandramohan Das, counsel for the 3rd respondent and Smt.T.B.Ramani, learned Government Pleader.

(3.) On considering the Writ Petition for admission on 4.1.2007, I passed an interim order restraining the 4th respondent from conducting the unit unless he is having a current valid licence issued by the Panchayat. On 1.2.2007 when the case was considered again, Mr.V.K.Sunil, counsel for the 4th respondent submitted that no machineries will be operated since for operating machineries a licence is necessary in terms of Section 233 of the Panchayat Raj Act and he submitted that presently only hand tools will be used for making furniture. On a complaint by the petitioner that in spite of the order passed on 1.2.2007, the 4th respondent is continuing to operate machineries, the additional 5th respondent was impleaded and the 5th respondent was directed to ensure that the 4th respondent does not make use of any of the machineries in his unit and that he makes furniture only manually, i.e. by using own hand tools. Today when the case came up for consideration, the Government Pleader on the basis of the instructions submits that the 4th respondent is making furniture with his hand tools only. Learned standing counsel for the Panchayat submitted that even for making furniture with carpenters' hand tools licence is necessary and such was the practice which was followed in the Panchayat. He further submitted that already the Panchayat has issued a stop memo to the 4th respondent. However, learned Standing Counsel was unable to inform as to whether a notification has been issued by the Panchayat in terms of Section 232 of the Act including the furniture making also an activity requiring licence. On behalf of the Pollution Control Board, it was submitted that consent has been issued by the Pollution Control Board only for making furniture manually and not by operating any machineries.