Kerala High Court
Abdul Majeed P.P vs The Pattithara Grama Panchayat on 20 March, 2013
Author: K.Surendra Mohan
Bench: K.Surendra Mohan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF MARCH 2013/29TH PHALGUNA 1934
WP(C).No. 7826 of 2013 (C)
---------------------------
PETITIONER(S) :
---------------------
ABDUL MAJEED P.P., AGED 44 YEARS
PATHAYAPURAYIL, PATTITHARA P.O., THRITHALA
PALAKKAD-679 534.
BY ADVS.SRI.SIBY MATHEW
SRI.PHILIP J.VETTICKATTU
RESPONDENT(S) :
-----------------------
1. THE PATTITHARA GRAMA PANCHAYAT
THALAKKASSERI P.O., PALAKKAD-679 538
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY.
2. THE SECRETARY
PATTITHARA GRAMA PANCHAYATH,
THALAKKASSERI P.O., PALAKKAD-679 538.
3. CHANDRASEKHARAN
S/O. KOYATH VADKELA VALAPPIL LAKSHMI AMMA
PATTITHARA, OTTAPPALAM-679 534.
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 20-03-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
BP
WP(C).No. 7826 of 2013 (C)
---------------------------
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
-------------------------------------
P1 : COPY OF LETTER DTD.31.3.2011 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE
PETITIONER.
P2 : COPY OF THE CONSENT TO OPERATE THE QUARRY ISSUED BY THE POLLUTION
CONTROL BOARD TO THE PETITIONER.
P3 : COPY OF THE EXPLOSIVE LICENSE ISSUED BY THE DY.CHIEF CONTROLLER OF
EXPLOSIVES.
P4 : COPY OF MINING PERMIT ISSUED BY THE GEOLOGIST TO THE PETITIONER.
P5 : COPY OF RESOLUTION DTD.20.4.2011 PASSED BY THE PANCHAYAT
COMMITTEE, PATTITHARA GRAMA PANCHAYATH.
P6 : COPY OF LEGAL OPINION GIVEN BY THE ASST.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, JFCM
COURT, PATTAMBI.
P7 : COPY OF LETTER DTD.19.5.2011 SUBMITTED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER ALONG
WITH REPORT.
P8 : COPY OF THE LETTER DTD.27.5.2011 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT
INFORMING REJECTION OF APPLICATION.
P9 : COPY OF RESOLUTION DTD.23.2.2012 TAKEN BY THE PANCHAYAT INFORMING
THE PETITIONER.
P10: COPY OF JUDGMENT DTD.22.3.2012 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WPC
NO.24891/2011.
P11: COPY OF RESOLUTION NO.5/2012 DTD.19.4.2012 PASSED BY THE PANCHAYAT
COMMITTEE.
P12: COPY OF JUDGMENT DTD.26.11.2012 PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL FOR LOCAL
SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTION.
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : NIL.
---------------------------------------
//TRUE COPY//
P.A. TO JUDGE
BP
K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J.
--------------------------------------------------
W.P.(C.)No.7826 Of 2013
--------------------------------------------------
DATED THIS THE 20th DAY OF MARCH, 2013
JUDGMENT
This Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner challenging Exhibit P12 order passed by the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions in Appeal No.393/12. The petitioner was an applicant for the issue of a licence to conduct a quarry in his property. He has been running the quarry from 2008 onwards. According to the petitioner, he has got all necessary licenses and permissions from the concerned authorities. Exhibit P2 is the consent to operate issued by the Pollution Control Board. He has got permission from the Explosives Department as well as the Mining and Geology Department. It appears that his application was initially dismissed by the Secretary, against which he had filed an appeal to the Panchayat Committee. As per Exhibit P5, his appeal was allowed by the Panchayat Committee. However, the Secretary entered a dissenting note and sought legal opinion from the Assistant Public Prosecutor, Pattambi. Exhibit P6 is the legal opinion. On the basis of Exhibit P6, he WPC.No.7826/13 -2- obtained a report from the Village Officer, Exhibit P7. Exhibit P7 showed that there were no residential houses within a distance of 50 Metres of the blasting area. In spite of the above, by Exhibit P8, the petitioner's application was rejected. The petitioner, therefore, challenged Exhibit P8 before this Court and as per interim order dated 31.3.2012, this Court directed the Panchayat to grant licence. Accordingly licence was also granted to the petitioner. In the meanwhile, he submitted an application for renewal of the licence. However, the petitioner was informed that his application could be considered only after disposal of the Writ Petition, that was pending. Subsequently, the Writ Petition was allowed by Exhibit P10 judgment, directing the Secretary to consider the petitioner's application. Thereafter, Exhibit P11 was passed by the Panchayat Committee granting licence to the petitioner. The 3rd respondent challenged Exhibit P11 before the Tribunal in appeal. The said appeal has been allowed by Exhibit P12 and Exhibit P11 has been set aside. The petitioner is aggrieved by Exhibit P12.
I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at length. The Tribunal has, on an examination of the entire issue, found that WPC.No.7826/13 -3- the petitioner had not taken a licence to establish the quarry under Section 233 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994('the Act' for short). It has, therefore, been found that the petitioner had to obtain a licence to establish under Section 233 of the Act, before the quarry was established. It is also pointed out that the Secretary is the authority competent to issue such a licence. In the present case, a decision has been taken by the Panchayat, which is without jurisdiction. For the above reason, the Tribunal has set aside the proceedings Exhibit P11. I do not find any infirmity with the reasoning of the Tribunal in Exhibit P12 or understanding of the position of law by the said authority. It is up to the petitioner to submit an application for obtaining a permit to establish under Section 233 of the Act and to pursue the matter accordingly.
In view of the above, I do not find any grounds to interfere with Exhibit P12. The Writ Petition fails and is accordingly dismissed.
Sd/- (K.SURENDRA MOHAN) JUDGE.
dsn