PRABHAKARAN AND OTHERS Vs. KOTTUKAL GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, KOTTUKAL P.O., BALARAMAPURAM (VIA), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to quash Ext.P9 order passed by the 2nd respondent, Secretary of the 1st respondent Grama Panchayat dated 13.08.2018, whereby the petitioner was informed that the Committee of the 1st respondent Grama Panchayat has decided not to grant licence to the petitioner in order to start a tar mixing unit. Material facts for the disposal of the writ petition are as follows:

(2.) Petitioner is a PWD contractor, who is undertaking execution of several Government works including the work awarded as per Ext.P1 work order dated 18.09.2017 for a probable amount of contract of Rs. 1,66,79,753/-. For the execution of the work, petitioner intends to put up a temporary tar mixing plant in the property covered as per Ext.P2 rent deed. Petitioner has secured Ext.P3 consent from the 3rd respondent as well as sanitary fitness certificate from health authorities. Thereafter, petitioner has submitted application before the 1st respondent Panchayat for issuance of D and O licence. In response to the said application, Panchayat has issued Ext.P4 letter dated 09.03.2018, directing the petitioner to rectify the defects in the application by furnishing building number, the consent issued by the Pollution Control Board and Sanitary Fitness Certificate. Pursuant to the same, petitioner has produced the consent and Sanitary Certificate. However, regarding the building number, it was pointed out that, it is a portable tar mixing unit, intended to be operated for the applicant alone. Anyhow, Panchayat again issued Ext.P6 letter, requiring the petitioner to furnish the building number. Thereupon, petitioner has approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.25460 of 2018 and the 2nd respondent was directed to consider the licence application submitted by the petitioner, taking into account the fact that petitioner is using a portable tar mixing plant, and the numbering of the building is not required. However, after considering the entire aspects, Ext.P9 decision was taken by the Panchayat Committee to decline licence to the petitioner, purportedly for the reason that, there is mass public protest against the installation of the tar mixing plant, and there is every likelihood of law and order situation in respect of the same.

(3.) A detailed counter affidavit is filed by the 1st and 2nd respondents, justifying the stand adopted in Ext.P9. Among other contentions, it is stated that, the averment made in the writ petition that petitioner intends to use a portable tar mixing plant is not correct, since the tar mixing unit is a fixed one and the machinery is mounted on a concrete platform in a shed with concrete roofing having electricity connection. It is also stated that, near to the petitioner's tar mixing unit, a Hospital with in-patient and out-patient facility, one U.P. School and one Teachers Training Institute with boarding facility are functioning. The chimney of the unit is not in consonance with the prescribed level, and it is constructed in a lower level than prescribed, which results in smoke spreading over the area causing serious ailments to the public, especially to the people visiting the hospital and children and students of the educational institutions. It is pointed out that, Exts.R1(a) and R1(b) complaints are filed by the Residents Association as well as an S.N.D.P Sakha. Other contentions are also raised with respect to the inconveniences and environmental problems that can cause, if the tar mixing plant is permitted to be installed in the property in question.