Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Kerala High Court

M/S. Black Diamond Rock Products Llp vs The Ayyambuzha Grama Panchayath on 9 December, 2016

Author: P.B.Suresh Kumar

Bench: P.B.Suresh Kumar

        

 
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                             PRESENT:

                   THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR

           MONDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2017/3RD ASWINA, 1939

                                 WP(C).No. 23978 of 2017 (V)
                                 -----------------------------------------


PETITIONER(S) :
-------------------------

                     M/S. BLACK DIAMOND ROCK PRODUCTS LLP,
                     REPRESENTED BY ITS MG.PARTNER, SRI. GEORGE V.MANGALY,
                     MANGALY HOUSE, MANJAPPRA P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.


                     BY SRI.GRASHIOUS KURIAKOSE (SENIOR ADVOCATE)
                          ADVS. SRI. M.V.ASHIM
                                SRI.BABY KURIAKOSE

RESPONDENT(S) :
----------------------------

          1.         THE AYYAMBUZHA GRAMA PANCHAYATH,
                     REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
                     AYYAMBUZHA P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-683 581.

          2.         THE SECRETARY,
                     AYYAMBUZHA GRAMA PANCHAYATH,
                     AYYAMBUZHA P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-683 581.


                     BY ADV. SRI.K.S.ARUN KUMAR

           THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
           ON 25-09-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
           THE FOLLOWING:




Msd.

WP(C).No. 23978 of 2017 (V)
-----------------------------------------

                                            APPENDIX

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS :

EXHIBIT P1          TRUE COPY OF INDENT OF LEASE ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER
                    FIRM FROM GEOLOGY DEPARTMENT.

EXHIBIT P2          TRUE COPY OF THE RECOMMENDATION OF DEAC IN
                    THE PETITIONER'S APPLICATION DATED 09.12.2016.

EXHIBIT P3          TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P(C).NO.2906/2017 OF
                    THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA.

EXHIBIT P4          TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT
                    COLLECTOR DATED 27.03.2017 DISMISSING THE PETITION
                    SUBMITTED BY SMT.JAYA MATHCHAN.

EXHIBIT P5          ENVIRONMENTAL CLEARING (EC) DATED 02.05.2017 ISSUED BY
                    THE DEIAA, ERNAKULAM.

EXHIBIT P6          TRUE COPY OF EXPLOSIVE LICENSE DATED 18.08.2004.

EXHIBIT P7          TRUE COPY OF THE RENEWAL ORDER ISSUED BY THE KERALA
                    STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD DATED 03.06.2017.

EXHIBIT P8          TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT
                    PANCHAYATH DATED 04.07.2017.

EXHIBIT P9          TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY THE SECOND
                    RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS :

                                                NIL

                                                        //TRUE COPY//


                                                        P.A.TO JUDGE.

Msd.



                 P.B.SURESH KUMAR, J.

            =====================

               W.P.(C.) No. 23978 of 2017

       ----------------------------------------------

     Dated this the 25thday of September, 2017


                       JUDGMENT

The petitioner has preferred an application before the second respondent, the Secretary of the first respondent Panchayat under the Kerala Panchayat Raj (Issue of Licence to Dangerous and Offensive Trades and Factories) Rules, 1996 (the Rules) for licence to operate a quarry. The application has been placed by the second respondent before the first respondent and the first respondent rejected the application as per Ext.P8 order. According to the petitioner, the reasons stated by the first respondent in Ext.P8 order are unsustainable in the light of the decision of this Court in Ramapuram Grama Panchayat v. St.Basil Industries India Pvt. Ltd. [2016 (2) KLT 219]. The petitioner, therefore, challenges Ext.P8 order in this proceedings on the aforesaid ground. W.P.(C.) No. 23978 of 2017 2

2. Heard the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner as also the learned counsel for the Panchayat.

3. It is seen that in terms of the provision contained in Section 232 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, the competent authority to take decisions on the applications for issue of licence under Rules is the Secretary of the Panchayat, and the committee of the Panchayat is the appellate authority as far as the decisions taken by the Secretary are concerned under Section 276 of the said Act. When the statute requires the Secretary of the Panchayat to take decisions on the applications preferred for licence and the committee of the Panchayat to examine the correctness of the said decisions, the Panchayat is not expected to deal with the applications for licence at all. On that short point, the impugned decision is liable to be interfered with.

In the result, the writ petition is allowed, Ext.P8 order is quashed and the Secretary of the Panchayat is directed to take a decision on the application W.P.(C.) No. 23978 of 2017 3 for licence preferred by the petitioner, in the light of the decision of this Court Ramapuram Grama Panchayat v. (supra). This shall be done within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

Sd/-


                                     P.B. SURESH KUMAR,
SKS                                          JUDGE