GEORGE Vs. VANNAPPURAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 9597 of 2017 is an entrepreneur who has been consistently before the Panchayat and this Court and various other authorities for establishment of a M-Sand and Hollow-brick unit. The same is opposed by respondents Nos. 3 and 4. Respondent No. 4 along with another have filed W.P.(C) No. 4576 of 2017 seeking a direction to consider the representation against the establishment of the said unit. The parties are referred to from their status in W.P.(C) No. 9597 of 2017.

(2.) As has been rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, the documents from Exhibits P-1 to P-26 need not be referred to at this point, since the entire controversy has been settled by Exhibit P-27 judgment. Exhibit P-27 considered a series of Writ Appeals filed against the common judgment in Writ Petitions by both the petitioner and the party respondents. The issue was insofar as a Consent to Establish haying been granted by the Kerala State Pollution Control Board [for brevity "PCB"] for establishing a Hollow-brick and M-Sand unit. The contention was with respect to the unit being within the prohibited distance as measured; with reference to the capacity of the motor used within the unit. By Exhibit P-27 judgment, this Court found that the Consent to Establish as issued by the PCB, is proper and there would be no interference made to the same. In the course of the judgment, the Civil Suit which was filed by the party respondents, was also referred to. Similar contentions raised before the Civil Court was rejected and the suit stood dismissed.

(3.) The Consent to Establish has the approval of the Division Bench of this Court. The petitioner, armed with Exhibit P-27, and a building permit issued by the local authority; constructed the building and approached the local authority for numbering of the building. The local authority issued Exhibit P-29, which, according to the learned Standing Counsel, is only a direction to cure the defects and not one rejecting the application as such. The objectors, who appear through learned Counsel in both the Writ Petitions, submit that the petitioner has not, till date, obtained a permission to establish under Section 233 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 [for brevity "KPR Act"]. It is submitted that the said application has not even been made till date and the application was only for the construction of a building. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, however, would refer to Exhibit P-33 to contend that the Council had permitted the establishment.