WP(C) No. 3364 of 2012 · Kerala High Court

W.P.(C).3364/12 APPENDIX PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1: TRUE COPY OF THE LICENSE ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER UNDER KERALAPANCHAYATH RAJ ACT, 1994 BY THE SECRETARY OF THE SECOND RESPONDENTPANCHAYATH.EXHIBIT P2: TRUE COPY OF THE INJUCNTION ORDER IN I.A. NO.569 OF 2011 IN O.S. NO.117 OF 2011 DATED 11.2.2011 PASSED by the FIRST ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF'S COURT-I,KOZHIKODE.EXHIBIT P3: TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER THROUGH HISLAWYER DATED 31.5.2011 TO THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE SENIOR ENVIRONMENTALENGINEER.EXHIBIT P4: TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED 31.5.2011 SUBMITTED BY THEPETITIONER AGAINST THENOTICE DATED 23.5.2011 ISSUED BY THE FIRSTRESPONDENT.EXHIBIT P5: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 2.9.20141 IN I.A. NO. 1035 OF 2011PASSED BY THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.EXHIBIT P6: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED IN REVISION PETITION NO. 78 OF 2011DATED 13.1.2012 PASSED by the HON'BLE TRIBUNAL FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENTINSTITUTIONS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.EXHIBIT P7-TRUE COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 23.5.11 ISSUED BY THE1ST RESPONDENT SECRETARY OF KARUVATOOR GRAMAPANCHAYATH TO THEPETITIONER EXHIBIT P8-TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS BEARING NO.A7/437/11 ISSUED BYTHE FIRST RESPONDENT SECRETARY OF KARUVATOOR GRAMAPANCHAYATH TO THEPETITIONER EXHIBIT P9-TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE NO.A7/4337/11 DATED 22.8.11 ISSUED BY THE1ST RESPONDENT SECRETARY OF KARUVATOOR GRAMAPANCHAYATHCOMMUNICATING THE DECISION OF THE PANCHAYATH COMMITTEE IN APPEAL FILEDBY THE PETITIONER EXHIBIT P10-TRUE COPY OF THE SAID NOTICE DATED 24.3.11 ISSUED BY THE SENIORENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER TO THE PETITIONER EXHIBIT P11-TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERTO THE SECRETARY OF THE PANCHAYATH /true copy/ PA To Judge ANTONY DOMINIC, J........................................W.P.(C).3364/2012..............................................Dated this the 21st day of May, 2012JUDGMENTPetitioner, who was granted a license forconducting cement business upto 1.3.2011, appliedfor its renewal. It is stated that orders were notpassed by the Panchayat as a result of which, adeemed licence, as contemplated under Section 236(3) of the Kerala Panchayath Raj Act, 1994, accruedin his favour upto 31.3.2011.

Therefore, Ext.P4 notice was issued by the Panchayat on 23.5.2011 calling upon the petitioner toclose down the cement business mainly on the groundof pollution and the nuisance that was caused to thepeople in the neighbourhood. His appeal to the Committee was rejected and he filed a revision to the Tribunal. In the revision, initially the Tribunal passedExt.P5 order of stay of Ext.P4. However, afterhearing the parties, the Tribunal finally rejected therevision by Ext.P6 order. It is challenging Ext.P6 W.P.(C).3364/122order, the writ petition has been filed. 2. The contention raised by the learned counselfor the petitioner is that the revision was rejected bythe Tribunal without adverting to the contentionsand the remedial action that has already been takenby the petitioner. It is also stated that, as at presentthere is no pollution caused, requiring closure of thebusiness.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2 and thelearned Standing Counsel appearing for the fifthrespondent.

As already seen, what is involved in this writpetition is the validity of Ext.P6, the order passed bythe Tribunal rejecting the revision filed by thepetitioner and the contention raised by the learnedcounsel for the petitioner is that it was withoutadverting to the contentions raised that the orderwas passed. However, a reading of the order leads W.P.(C).3364/123me to think otherwise. This order shows that onaccount of the nuisance that was caused by thepetitioner, the Secretary of the Panchayat, bycommunication dated 11.4.2011, called upon the Medical Officer, Primary Health Centre, Karuvattoor, to conduct an inspection and to submita report. Accordingly, inspection was conducted on4.5.2011 and a report was submitted confirming thatcement dust was being spread in the area causingdisturbances and nuisance. It is also seen thatsubsequently, complaints were made by the sixthrespondent and notice dated 23.5.2011 was issuedto the petitioner requiring him to show cause whythe shop should not be ordered to be closed. Hefiled a reply denying the allegation and it wasthereafter that Ext.P4 notice was issued. The orderalso reveals that the Environmental Engineer of the Pollution Control Board had issued a letter dated23.5.2011 to the petitioner that he was notconducting the trade by complying with the directionto abate the pollution and that for that reason, heshould close down his shop. It is also seen that W.P.(C).3364/124subsequently the Environmental Engineer sent aletter dated 20.7.2011 to the Secretary of the Panchayat directing him to cancel the licence of thepetitioner. It is as a result of this that Ext.P4 noticewas issued by the Panchayath. Thus, obviously itwas taking into account of the above, that the Tribunal passed Ext.P6 order rejecting the revision. In my view, neither Ext.P4 nor Ext.P6 suffers fromany infirmity justifying interference.

Needless to say that it will still be open to thepetitioner to satisfy the statutory requirements andapply for licence, in which event, untrammelled bythe findings in this judgment, the application will bedealt with. With the above clarification, the writ petitionis dismissed. Sd/- ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE mrcs/true copy/ PA To Judge