TIJO.K.GEORGE Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners have approached this Court impugning Ext.P5 decision taken by the 2 nd respondent - Koodaranhi Grama Panchayat, authorising its Secretary to take a final decision with respect to the Trade Licence to be issued to the 4th respondent, to run the quarrying operations.

(2.) The petitioners say that the area in question is included in the "hazardous zone" and is prone to landslides; and therefore, that the impugned decision of the Panchayat is illegal and unlawful. They, therefore, pray that Ext.P5 be set aside.

(3.) In response, the learned Senior Counsel Sri.Bechu Kurian Thomas instructed by Sri.Enoch David Simon Joel, learned counsel for the 4th respondent, submits that the allegations of the petitioner are wholly untenable, since his client is operating the quarry on the strength of all necessary licences, clearances and permissions including the Environmental Clearance. He says that, in fact, the Secretary of the Panchayat has already issued a Trade Licence to his client, which is evident from Ext.R4(e) and that he is presently operating the quarry on its strength. The learned Senior Counsel then submitted very vehemently that unless the petitioners are able to successfully challenge the statutory licences and consents obtained by his clients, they cannot stand in the way of the Secretary of the Panchayat taking an appropriate decision going by the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in Tommy Thomas v. State of Kerala [2019 (3) KLT 987]. The learned Senior Counsel, therefore, prays that this writ petition be dismissed.