Kerala High Court
Nagaroor Grama Panchayath vs Vijayakumar V on 5 February, 2016
Author: Anu Sivaraman
Bench: Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, Anu Sivaraman
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR.THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
TUESDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF JUNE 2016/31ST JYAISHTA, 1938
WA.No. 564 of 2016 () IN WP(C).4415/2016
------------------------------------------
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 4415/2016 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA
DATED 05-02-2016
APPELLANT(S):
------------
NAGAROOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH
NAGAROOR P.O,CHIRAYINKEEZHU TALUK,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 518,REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
BY ADV. SRI.M.DINESH
RESPONDENT(S):
--------------
1. VIJAYAKUMAR V
VIJAYAVILASOM,PUTHUCHIRA,UMAYANALLOOR P.O,KOLLAM.
2. STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY,DEPARTMENT OF MININIG &
GEOLOGY,GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695001.
3. DIRECTOR OF MINING & GEOLOGY,
DIRECTORATE OF MINING & GEOLOGY,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001.
4. DISTRICT GEOLOGIST,
DISTRICT OFFICE, DEPARTMENT OF
MINING & GEOLOGY,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001.
5. KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD,
PATTOM,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001,
REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER.
R2 to R4 BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.I.DAVIS
R1 BY ADV. SRI.BECHU KURIAN THOMAS (SR.)
R1 BY ADV. SRI.PAUL JACOB, SC, UNIVERSITY OF KERALA
R5 BY SRI. M.AJAY, SC, KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL
BOARD
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21-06-2016,
ALONG WITH WA. 568/2016, WA. 572/2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
'C.R'
THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, Ag.CJ.
&
ANU SIVARAMAN, J.
-----------------------------------------------
W.A.Nos. 564, 568 and 572 of 2016
-----------------------------------------------
Dated this the 21st June, 2016
JUDGMENT
Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, Ag.CJ.
These appeals are by a Grama Panchayat challenging the interim orders granted during the course of three writ petitions.
2. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant Panchayat and the learned Senior Counsel appearing for different private parties in the writ petition, who are the writ petitioners.
3. The writ petitioners were issued with D & O licences in terms of the provisions of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, hereinafter referred to as the 'Act', and the Kerala Panchayat Raj (Issue of Licence to Dangerous and Offensive Trades and Factories) Rules, 1996, for short, the 'D & O Rules'. The learned single Judge directed that those licences under the D & O Rules be renewed without insisting on environmental clearance certificates being produced. This is under challenge.
4. The provisions of Sections 232, 233 and 234 of the Act as well as the contents of the D & O Rules clearly show that the provisions of the Act and the D & O Rules stand by themselves and those provisions are not dependent on any decision to be rendered on the WA.564/16 & connected cases 2 basis of any other statute. We are, therefore, of the view that the decision of the learned single Judge in W.P(C).No.32230 of 2014 (judgment dated 2.12.2014) to the effect that the Panchayat authorities are only bound to act with the provisions of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act and Rules deserves to be affirmed. We do so.
5. The writ appeals filed by the Panchayat are on the premise that the D & O licences could be issued only with environmental clearance. Reliance is placed on the decision of this Court in Deepak Kumar & others v. State of Haryana & others [(2012) 4 SCC 629] and also the decision of this Court in All Kerala River Protection Council v. State of Kerala [2015(2) KLT 78) and also the order of the Honourable Supreme Court in SLP (Civil) No.30103 of 2015, wherein it has been recorded that the existing permits would be renewed.
6. As rightly pointed out by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the private respondents, who are the writ petitioners, the decision making process by the Panchayat authorities under the D & O Rules has to be independently made and would not be made depending upon anything which is not statutorily insisted or permitted to be relied on in such proceedings. Therefore, the applications for D & O licences will have to be processed without insisting on environmental clearance. Whether a particular WA.564/16 & connected cases 3 entrepreneur or a person who has obtained D & O licence, will ultimately carry out the activity is his look out because, that may depend on different licences and permits to be granted by different authorities. In this view of the matter, we do not see any illegality in the impugned orders.
For the aforesaid reasons, these writ appeals fail. They are accordingly dismissed. The appellant will comply with the directions of the learned single Judge in the impugned interim orders within a period of three weeks from today.
THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN JUDGE vgs21/6