JUDGMENT : Both the writ petitions are concerned with the establishment of an M-sand unit with facilities for crushing metal, as sought to be established by the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.25914/2016, who is the 5th respondent in W.P.(C) No.3147/2015, which is filed by four persons who asserted in the writ petition that they are residing within 200 meters of the proposed industry of the 5th respondent. W.P.(C) No.3147/2016 having been filed first, the parties will be referred to from their status in the said writ petition and so would the documents, unless otherwise specified. 2. There is also a serious objection raised by the 5th respondent with respect to the locus standi of the petitioners, who are said to reside outside the prohibited distance of 100 meters. This Court had, by order dated 06.10.2016, based on the exhibits produced by the 5th respondent as Exts.R(h) to R5(k), directed the petitioners to file separate affidavits answering the allegation of their residences being outside the prohibited distance. Separate affidavits have been filed and the same projects very disturbing issues, which will be dealt with later. 3. The petitioners in W.P.(C) No.3147/2016 contended that they were signatories along with about 200 residents of the Panchayat, in a complaint filed as Ext.P1 before the Secretary of the Grama Panchayat. The petitioners allege that in addition to numerous residences, including theirs, there is a school, a church, a temple, an orphanage and an SC/ST colony within the prohibited distance and the crusher unit would only cause nuisance to the residents of the Panchayat and damage to their properties and the properties of the various institutions. The Panchayat, without following any of the prescriptions under Section 233 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, ('Act' for short) decided to grant permission to establish, as is seen from the decision at Ext.P2. A further application made by the 5th respondent for 'Consent to Establish' by the Pollution Control Board, produced at Ext.P3, indicates no residences within the prohibited distance of 100 meters, which, according to the petitioners, is a false statement. Ext.P4 'Consent to Establish' issued by the Pollution Control Board is also challenged by the petitioners in the writ petition. 4. A further application made by the 5th respondent for 'Consent to Establish' by the Pollution Control Board, produced at Ext.P3, indicates no residences within the prohibited distance of 100 meters, which, according to the petitioners, is a false statement. Ext.P4 'Consent to Establish' issued by the Pollution Control Board is also challenged by the petitioners in the writ petition. 4. In addition to the grounds of the petitioners lacking locus standi, the 5th respondent has filed a detailed counter affidavit indicating the various sanctions and permissions he has obtained as also asserting that the Panchayat had followed the procedure as prescribed under Section 233 of the Act in taking a decision as revealed from Ext.P2. Admittedly, the 5th respondent has been permitted to establish an M-sand Unit, as decided by the Council of the Panchayat. Ext.R5(b) is the order issued by the Chief Town Planner, on the application for building permit being transmitted by the Panchayat to the Chief Town Planner. The 'No Objection Certificate' issued from the office of the Assistant Divisional Officer, Fire and Rescue Services, is produced at Ext.R5(c). The 'No Objection Certificate' issued by the District Medical Officer of Health, is produced at Ext.R5(d). The Panchayat, after Ext.P2 resolution, in accordance with the decision to get a report of the environmental impact, had addressed the State Environmental Impact Assessment Authority. The Department of Environment and Climate Change had, by Ext.R5(f), indicated that there is no such impact assessment required for a crusher unit. A complaint was filed by the two schools, existing in the Panchayat, against the establishment of the crusher unit, in which Ext.R5(g) order was passed by the Kerala State Child Rights Commission, Thiruvananthapuram, in which certain conditions with respect to the transportation of crushed minerals and raw material was made, which the 5th respondent agrees to comply with. 5. The learned Counsel for the respondent Municipality, to which the Panchayat was converted in the course of the consideration of the application of the 5th respondent, has produced a resolution taken by the Municipality not to issue the license to the 5th respondent. The 5th respondent asserts that the decision canceling the earlier resolution was taken only because of the pendency of W.P.(C) No.3147/2016 and it is also not in accordance with the rules for effecting cancellation; if at all. 6. The 5th respondent asserts that the decision canceling the earlier resolution was taken only because of the pendency of W.P.(C) No.3147/2016 and it is also not in accordance with the rules for effecting cancellation; if at all. 6. The further action taken by the Municipality on the basis of the protest made by the general public was raised in the counter affidavit filed by the Municipality in W.P.(C) No.3147/2016, upon which the 5th respondent approached the Municipality for a copy of the decision under the Right To Information Act. The Municipality issued a reply, which is produced at Ext.P13 in W.P.(C) No.25914/2016. The same is only a decision to appoint a Counsel to contest the writ petition filed by the objectors of the crusher unit. The subsequent decision to cancel the earlier resolution gave rise to the second writ petition. 7. The learned Counsel appearing for the Municipality, to negate the contentions taken in the second writ petition; would also produce before me a decision of the Municipality as seen taken on 23.08.2016 bearing decision No.156/2016, which reads as under: ---- In other language ---- 8. Admittedly, the petitioners have all sanctions and permissions as is required for establishment of an M-sand unit. The Municipality too had taken a resolution, as is indicated from Ext.P2 to grant permission to establish, as provided under Section 233 of the Act. The contention of the objectors/petitioners is that the report of the Secretary was not considered. The report of the Secretary is produced by the 5th respondent in his writ petition as Ext.P7. The contention that the report was not looked into by the Council when taking a decision, cannot be countenanced, especially since the Secretary unequivocally states in his report that there could be no objection against the establishment of the M-sand unit. Further, as pointed out by the learned Counsel for the 5th respondent, Ext.P1 was a request made by the residents of the Panchayat for convening a Ward Grama Sabha. Obviously, the Ward Grama Sabha was convened and a decision taken, which was also placed before the Council, as is seen from Ext.P2. 9. A reading of Ext.P2 is essential to understand the consideration made by the Council of the Panchayat (as it was then). Obviously, the Ward Grama Sabha was convened and a decision taken, which was also placed before the Council, as is seen from Ext.P2. 9. A reading of Ext.P2 is essential to understand the consideration made by the Council of the Panchayat (as it was then). The decision with respect to the application made by the 5th respondent under Section 233 of the Act was taken up as Agenda No.11 for discussion. The decision taken by the Grama Sabha of Ward No.3 dated 22.05.2015 and the complaints otherwise raised is seen to have been put to the Council by the Secretary and explanation offered. The Secretary is said to have informed the Council that the 5th respondent has all necessary sanctions and permissions. The decision of the Grama Sabha of Ward No.3 was read over to the Council by the Secretary in the meeting. The Member of Ward No.3, who was also the Chairman of the Development Standing Committee submitted before the Council that the objections were raised on an apprehension that it was a quarry which was sought to be commenced. It was also stated by the Ward member that there were different opinions raised by the residents in the Grama Sabha, some of whom supported the establishment of the unit, which generates employment to the residents of the locality. The Ward Member went to the extent of withdrawing the complaint raised by the residents. The other Council members also spoke on the subject matter, all of whom supported the issuance of permission under Section 233 of the Act. The only rider was with respect to the Environmental Impact Assessment being sought for. 10. The learned Counsel for the petitioners would stress on the fact that the Council decision was not to consider the Grama Sabha decision or the other complaints filed. The contention is raised on the language used, which is as follows: --------------in other language ---------- 11. This Court is not inclined to accept the said contention. The language used could be interpreted loosely to mean that there was no consideration, but the general purport, as understood from a reading of the entire minutes, is otherwise. The decision was that the apprehensions raised by the Grama Sabha and that projected in the complaints are not worthy of consideration, for reason of there being no substantiation of the fears so expressed. 12. The decision was that the apprehensions raised by the Grama Sabha and that projected in the complaints are not worthy of consideration, for reason of there being no substantiation of the fears so expressed. 12. The application for establishment filed by the 5th respondent was on 31.01.2015 and the same was considered by the Municipality and a resolution taken to grant such permission, subject, however, to an environmental impact assessment being obtained from the competent Department. It is also seen from the records, as is noticed herein above, that the Department of Environment and Climate Change communicated to the Municipality that there is no assessment of environmental impact required for establishment of a M-Sand Unit. In such circumstance, what remained was for the Municipality to issue the license, failing which, the 5th respondent would be entitled to the deeming provision as found in Section 233 of the Panchayath Raj Act, which is also available in Section 492(15) of the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994. 13. The contention now raised by the Municipality on the strength of a subsequent decision taken is that the Municipality has resolved not to grant the permission, for reason of the public protest having been raised and the same being a decision taken in public interest. It is also submitted by the learned Counsel for the Municipality that the decision taken to grant license would not, in fact, deter the Municipality from making a consideration of the building permit, in accordance with the Kerala Municipality Building Rules, 1999 (for brevity 'KMB Rules, 1999'). 14. In this context, the reference to the Kerala Municipality (Procedure for Meeting of Council) Rules, 1995 (for brevity the 'Rules of 1995') is also relevant. Rule 13 of the Rules of 1995 speaks of cancellation or modification of resolutions. A resolution of a Council can be modified or cancelled only through a resolution passed in the meeting of the Council, specifically convened for the purpose, within three months of the earlier resolution and with support of not less than one and a half the number of members. The records produced in the above case by the Municipality does not reveal any such special meeting having been convened or the decision taken by the majority of one and a half of the members. The cancellation so made would also run counter to the declaration made in Siyad Hassan Vs. The records produced in the above case by the Municipality does not reveal any such special meeting having been convened or the decision taken by the majority of one and a half of the members. The cancellation so made would also run counter to the declaration made in Siyad Hassan Vs. Marady Grama Panchayath, 2015 (1) KLT 961 . 15. In such circumstance, the petitioners, going by the decision taken by the Municipality as revealed from Ext.P2, are deemed to have the permission to establish as required under Section 448 of the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994. It is declared so and there shall be a formal consent to establish issued by the Secretary of the Municipality in accordance with the decision of the Council as revealed from Exhibit P2. 16. What is then required is a consideration of the building permit application, which has to be done by the Secretary, in accordance with the KMB Rules, 1999. The same has to be considered subject to the Town Planner's approval received by the 5th respondent. The 5th respondent would be liable to comply with all the conditions, as stipulated by the Town Planner, as also that stipulated by the Kerala State Commission for Protection of Child Rights, produced as Ext.R5(g). The Municipality would thus consider the building permit application, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. 17. The further issue to be dealt with is the complicity of the petitioners 1 to 4 who have made obviously false assertion in the memorandum of writ petition as to their residences being within 200 meters from the proposed unit. The subsequent affidavits filed by the individual petitioners indicate that petitioners 1 to 3 are residing more than 200 meters from the proposed industry. The 4th petitioner has filed an evasive affidavit, insofar as contending that his residence is nearly 200 metres of air distance from the proposed industry. The petitioners, hence, have resiled from the specific statement in the memorandum of writ petition, which reads as "petitioners are residing within 200 metres of the proposed industry of the 5th respondent" (sic). 18. The petitioners, along with the affidavit, have produced a number of documents, which were not called for by this Court; to further buttress their contentions in the writ petition. 18. The petitioners, along with the affidavit, have produced a number of documents, which were not called for by this Court; to further buttress their contentions in the writ petition. They now claim to have agitated the cause in the interest of the various establishments like church, temple and schools, which was not raised in the writ petition. It is also to be noticed that, as admitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioners, on a verification of Ext.P1 none of the petitioners are signatories in Ext.P1. 19. This court cannot but come to the irrefutable conclusion that the writ petition filed as W.P.(C) No.3147 of 2016 is a clear abuse of process of Court. This Court, despite the contentions raised of agitating public cause, is disturbed by the fact that a number of such writ petitions are filed, allegedly ventilating public grievances and personal grievances, but, however, the averments are made without any responsibility and with gross levity. Petitioners 1 to 3 have contended that it is the 4th petitioner, who motivated the other petitioners to be signatories to the writ petition. It is very difficult to countenance such contention, especially since the 1st petitioner has affirmed the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. For reason of the petitioners having made false averments before this Court on affidavit, it is deemed fit that each of the petitioners be mulcted with a cost of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only). The 5th respondent has graciously declined any such costs. In that circumstance the costs imposed by this Court shall be realised by the Kerala State Mediation Council which can be recovered under the provisions of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, 1968. The writ petitions would stand disposed of, with the above directions. The Secretary of the Municipality shall issue the consent to establish as decided by the Council in Exhibit P2 and consider the application for building permit within one month from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the judgment. No Costs. A copy of the judgment to be sent to the Director, Kerala State Mediation Council.