Kerala High Court
Moinudheen Haneefa vs Kadalundi Grama Panchayath
Author: K.Surendra Mohan
Bench: K.Surendra Mohan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN
TUESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2014/20TH KARTHIKA, 1936
WP(C).No. 26682 of 2013 (I)
----------------------------
PETITIONER(S):
--------------------------
MOINUDHEEN HANEEFA
S/O.USMAN KOYA, MANAGING PARTNER, SEA SHORE ICE PLANT
POST CHALIYAM, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.SRI.A.SUDHI VASUDEVAN
SMT.K.PUSHPAVATHI
SRI.T.M.KOCHUNNI
RESPONDENT(S):
----------------------------
1. KADALUNDI GRAMA PANCHAYATH,
POST CHALIYAM, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT,PIN-673301
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
2. THE SECRETARY
KADALUNDI GRAMA PANCHAYATH, POST CHALIYAM
KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN-673301.
Addl.3. DISTRICT OFFICER
GROUND WATER DEPARTMENT, DISTRICT OFFICE
CIVIL STATION, KOZHIKODE -20.ADDL. R3 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER
DATED 09/06/2014 IN IA 7132/2014.
R-R1 & 2 BY ADV. SRI.M.KRISHNAKUMAR
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11-11-2014,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
kkj
WP(C).No. 26682 of 2013 (I)
----------------------------
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
-------------------------------------
EXHIBIT P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE PARTNERSHIP DEED OF SEA SHORE ICE PLANT
DT.26-9-2012.
EXHIBIT P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY DEPARTMENT OF
INDUSTRIES, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA DT.28-9-2012.
EXHIBIT P3 : TRUE COPY OF THE SPECIFICATION AND REPORT OF THE PROPOSED
ICE PLANT INDUSTRIAL BUILDING SUBMITTED BEFORE R2.
EXHIBIT P4 : TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT
PANCHAYATH DT.20-11-2012.
EXHIBIT P5 : TRUE COPY OF THE CONSENT ISSUED BY THE KERALA STATE
POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD DT.7-11-2012.
EXHIBIT P6 : TRUE COPY OF THE CLEARANCE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE FIRE
AND RESCUE SERVICES DT.24-4-2013.
EXHIBIT P7 : TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF COASTAL REGULATIONS
ZONE NOTIFICATION DT.6-1-2011.
EXHIBIT P8 : TRUE COPY OF THE CLEARANCE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE
KERALA COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY.
EXHIBIT P9 : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DT.20-6-2013 ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT
TOWN PLANNER, KOZHIKODE.
EXHIBIT P10 : TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION TAKEN BY R1 GRAMA PANCHAYATH.
EXHIBIT P11 : TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY R2 DT.25-9-2013.
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS
---------------------------------------
EXHIBIT R1A- TRUE COPY OF THE MASS PETITION DATED 24-06-2013
EXHIBIT R1B- TRUE COPY OF THE MASS PETITION DATED 23-08-2013 FROM THE
KUDUMBASREE, KADALUNDI
EXHIBIT R1C- TRUE COPY OF THE MASS PETITION DATED 23-08-2013 FROM THE
DYFI, VALIYAL UNIT, KADALUNDI
EXHIBIT R1D- TRUE COPY OF THE MASS PETITION DATED 24-08-2013 FROM THE
JAGATHRA COMMITTEE, KADALUNDI
// TRUE COPY //
PA TO JUDGE
K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J.
---------------------------------------------
W.P.(C) No.26682 of 2013-I
----------------------------------------------
Dated this the 11th day of November, 2014
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner, Managing Partner of an ice plant has filed this writ petition challenging Exhibit P10. The main ground of attack against the impugned order is that the same has been passed by the Panchayat Committee. As per the provisions of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, it is the second respondent who is the competent authority to consider an application for licence. The power of the licencing authority has been usurped by the first respondent, according to the counsel for the petitioner.
2. The petitioner's application was one for the issue of a building permit submitted under Section 235F of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 ('the Act' for short). The application as per the said provision has to be submitted to the second respondent. The permission has to be granted by the second respondent as per section 235J of the Act. -:2:- W.P.(C) No.26682 of 2013-I Therefore, it is not the Panchayat Committee that has been empowered by the provisions of the Act to consider an application for building permit. In the present case, Exhibit P10 has been issued by the Panchayat Committee. The authority that has issued Exhibit P10 having had no authority to do so, Exhibit P10 is unsustainable.
In view of the above, without entering into the merits of the other contentions raised in this writ petition, Exhibit P10 is set aside. The second respondent is directed to consider the application for building permit submitted by the petitioner, in accordance with law and to pass appropriate order thereon, as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of one month of the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
Sd/-
K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE kkj