Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 503 (KER)

Maria Granites v. Thidanadu Grama Panchayat

2018-06-28

SHAJI P.CHALY

body2018
JUDGMENT : This Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner seeking the following reliefs: “(I) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents 2 and 4 to renew Exts.P2, P3, P4 and P5 based on Ext.P6, P8 and P10 applications for the year 2018-2024 based on the proviso to Kerala Panchayat Raj (Issue of Licence to Dangerous and Offensive Trades and Factories) Rules, 1996 as well as Ext.P12 ordinance issued by the Government of Kerala. (II) Issue such other reliefs which this Honourable Court may deems fit and appropriate in the facts and circumstances of this case.” Petitioner is a partnership firm, conducting quarry and crusher operations in and around 30 acres of land comprised in Survey Nos.477/4-, 101, 102, 103 of Poovarani and Kondoor Village in Meenachil Taluk of Kottayam District. The said area comes within the territorial limits of Meenachil Grama Panchayat and Thidanad Grama Panchayat. Petitioner firm was granted with Exts.P2, P3, P4 and P5 D & O licences for operating its quarry unit, crusher unit and M-sand unit by respondents 2 and 4. Even though petitioner submitted Exts.P6, P8 and P10 applications for renewal of D. & O. licence under the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 and the Kerala Panchayat (Issue of Licence to Dangerous and Offensive Trades and Factories) Rules 1996 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Rules 1996’ for short), for the period commencing from 1.4.2018 to 31.3.2024 in accordance with Rule 8 of the Rule, 1996, the license was extended only up to 20.6.2018 on the ground that the consent issued by the Pollution Control Board, expires on the aforesaid date. According to the petitioner, the renewal of consent was sought for, which was granted by the Pollution Control Board from the date of expiry for a period of 5 years. Thereupon petitioner has submitted Exts.P13 to P15 applications seeking to issue the license for a period of 5 years in accordance with Rules, 1996, which is pending consideration. Petitioner seeks appropriate direction to the respective Panchayat to take decision on the application submitted by the petitioner. 2. A detailed counter affidavit is filed basically contending that the licence was extended by the 4th respondent up to 30.6.2018, basically relying upon the consent issued by the Pollution Control Board, having validity up to the aforesaid date. It is also contended that in the application submitted by the petitioner, the period was corrected as 2018-2019. 2. A detailed counter affidavit is filed basically contending that the licence was extended by the 4th respondent up to 30.6.2018, basically relying upon the consent issued by the Pollution Control Board, having validity up to the aforesaid date. It is also contended that in the application submitted by the petitioner, the period was corrected as 2018-2019. It was thereupon that the limited licence was granted to the petitioner by the 3rd and 4th respondents up to 30.6.2018. Other contentions are also raised justifying the action for renewing the licence up 30.6.2018. A reply affidavit is also filed by the petitioner reiterating the stand adopted in the Writ Petition. 3. I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel appearing for the 3rd and 4th respondents and perused the pleadings and documents on record. 4. The subject issue revolves around Rule 8 of 1996, which is dealing with period of licence, which read thus: Period of licence: The period of every licence issued under Rule 6, will expire at the end of the year unless, for special reasons, the President considers that it should expire at an earlier date, when it shall expire at such earlier date as may be specified therein. Provided that the period of licence in respect of factory, industrial establishment etc., shall be fixed as five years and in such cases five times of the fee for licence per annum fixed by the Panchayat under Schedule III and IV shall be realised in advance.” Therefore, on a reading of the aforesaid Rules, it is categoric and clear that so far as the licence with respect to factory and industrial establishment etc., are concerned, the same ‘shall’ be fixed as five years, and in such cases five times of the fees for licence per annum fixed by the Panchayat under Schedule III and Schedule IV shall be realised in advance. 5. The imperative term used under Rule 8 makes it clear and significant that whenever a licence application of such establishments are considered, the same will have to be considered and if issued, it shall be issued for a period of 5 years accepting the fees recited to thereunder. 6. 5. The imperative term used under Rule 8 makes it clear and significant that whenever a licence application of such establishments are considered, the same will have to be considered and if issued, it shall be issued for a period of 5 years accepting the fees recited to thereunder. 6. That being the situation and evaluating the pros and cons and facts and figures, there will be direction to the respondents to consider the licence applications submitted by the petitioner in accordance with law, relying upon, Rule 8 of Rule 1996 and also taking into account all other permits/consents/permissions issued by the respective statutory authority. A decision shall be taken at the earliest possible time. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly.