Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 708 (KER)

Tomy Thomas v. State of Kerala

2019-08-30

C.K.ABDUL REHIM, R.NARAYANA PISHARADI, SHAJI P.CHALY

body2019
ORDER : C.K. Abdul Rehim, J. When one among the above Writ Petitions, W.P.(C) No.15505/2016, came up for consideration before a learned Judge of this court, an important legal question arose as to whether the Grama Panchayats (Village Panchayats) are obliged to grant permission for construction or for establishment of any factory, workshop, work place or machinery, under S.233 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred as ‘the Act’ for short) read with Rule 12 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj (Issue of Licence to Dangerous and Offensive Trades and Factories) Rules, 1996 (hereinafter referred as ‘the Licensing Rules’ for short), in cases where all the authorities had issued permissions/consents/no-objections certifying that such factory, workshop or work place will not cause any environmental problems, if it is permitted to function as per the conditions and restrictions imposed by the said authorities and when such units had also obtained environmental clearance from the State Environmental Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA). In other words, the issue confronted was, whether the panchayats have got primacy in their powers to take an independent decision to reject such applications seeking permission/licence in cases where permissions/consents/no-objections were issued by all the authorities concerned. 2. The learned Single Judge noticed that a Division Bench of this court in Ramapuram Grama Panchayat v. St.Basil Industries India (P) Ltd. & Ors. ( 2016 (3) KHC 118 ) had distinguished the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Action Council v. Benny Abraham (2002 KHC 416) as well as the decision of a Division Bench of this court in M/s. Gem Granites v. Deputy Superintendent of Police & Ors. ( 2008 (1) KHC 909 ) in order to hold that the panchayat has no authority to decline the licence. But it was noticed that in Gem Granites (supra) as well as in another Division Bench ruling in Bosco Antony v. State of Kerala & Ors. ( 2007 (4) KHC 116 ) this court had in fact upheld the primacy of the power enjoyed by the panchayats. It was noticed that a similar view was taken in the decision in Nagaroor Grama Panchayat v. Vijayakumar & Ors. ( 2016 (3) KHC 602 ) also. ( 2007 (4) KHC 116 ) this court had in fact upheld the primacy of the power enjoyed by the panchayats. It was noticed that a similar view was taken in the decision in Nagaroor Grama Panchayat v. Vijayakumar & Ors. ( 2016 (3) KHC 602 ) also. Therefore the learned Single Judge observed that, there exists a difference in the opinion with respect to the legal position settled in the rulings in Ramapuram Grama Panchayat (supra) on one side and the rulings in Action Council (supra), Gem Granites (supra), Bosco Antony (supra) and Nagaroor Grama Panchayat (supra) on the other side. Based on the conflict noticed, the matter was referred for decision of a Division Bench. Accordingly, W.P.(C) No.15505/2016 was referred for consideration to a Division Bench through an order passed on 20th September 2016. 3. When W.P.(C) No.15505/2016 came up for consideration before a Division Bench, W.P.(C) No.31684/2016 was also tagged on to that case. A common order of reference was passed by the Division Bench observing that, there exists conflict of opinion in the Division Bench rulings between Ramapuram Grama Panchayat (supra) and the rulings in Nagaroor Grama Panchayat (supra), Gem Granites (supra) and Bosco Antony (supra). Therefore it was found that the question of law requires settlement by a Full Bench. Hence the above cases were referred to the Full Bench through an order of reference passed on 3rd July 2018. Accordingly the above cases are posted for consideration before this court. 4. Before entering into discussions on the issue referred, it will be beneficial to have a scanning of the relevant provisions of the Act and the Rules. Ss.232 and 233 of the Act, as they stood prior to the amendment introduced in the year 2017, is as follows: “232. Purpose for which places may not be used without a licence.--(1) The Village Panchayat may notify that no place in the Panchayat area shall be used for any of the purposes specified in the rules made in this behalf being purposes which in the opinion of Government, are likely to be offensive or dangerous to human life or health or property without a licence issued by the (Secretary) and except in accordance with the conditions specified in such licence: Provided that no such notification shall take effect until the expiry of thirty days from the date of its publication. [(2)] Notwithstanding anything contained in the Abkari Act 1077(1 of 1077) or in any other law for the time being in force, no person shall without previous permission in writing of a Village Panchayat and otherwise than in accordance with the conditions specified in the permission, establish an Abkari shop within a Village Panchayat area; (3) While granting permission to establish an Abkari shop near an educational institution or place of worship, the distance limit prescribed in the Abkari Act for the time being in force or the rules framed thereunder shall be complied with and the Village Panchayat shall not grant permission to establish an Abkari shop within the said distance limit. (4) A Village Panchayat shall be competent, in the interest of public peace or morality or on the grounds of convenience or nuisance, to order the shifting of an Abkari shop from the place where it is situated to another or its closing within a period not exceeding fifteen days, as may be directed in this behalf. (5) Notwithstanding anything contained in this section, the provisions of sub-sections (2) to (4) shall not be applicable to any Abkari shop existing on 25th November, 2012, the date of commencement of the Kerala Panchayat Raj (Fourth Amendment) Ordinance, 2012(63 of 2012) or, subject to all existing legal provisions, for re-establishing the toddy shops existing on the said date, in the area within the boundaries allotted for establishing them. Explanation:- “Abkari shop” means a toddy shop or a foreign liquor shop or a foreign liquor retail shop or an establishment having FL-9 licence or a bar hotel, under the Abkari Act, 1077 and the rules made thereunder] 233. Permission for the construction of factories and the installation of machinery:- (1)] No person shall without the permission of the Village Panchayat and except in accordance with the conditions specified in such permission, - (a) construct or establish any factory, workshop or workplace in which it is proposed to employ steam power, water power or other mechanical power, or electrical power; or (b) install in any premises any machinery or manufacturing plant driven by any power as aforesaid, not being machinery or manufacturing plant exempted by the (provisions of this Act or the rules made thereunder). [(2)] An application for permission under sub-section (1) shall be submitted to the village panchayat addressed to the Secretary in such form and with such details as prescribed. (3) The secretary shall, as soon as may be after the receipt of the application, enquire and report to the Village panchayat as to whether the establishment of the factory, workshop or workplace or other installation of machinery or manufacturing plant for which permission is applied for is objectionable by reason of density of population in the neighbourhood and the possibility to cause nuisance or pollution and the village Panchayat after having considered the application and the reports of the secretary, and of such other authorities as specified in sub-section (4) may as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within sixty days, - (a) grant the permission either absolutely or subject to such conditions as it thinks fit to impose; or (b) refuse the permission for the reasons to be recorded. (4) Before granting or refusing permission under sub-section (3), the Village Panchayat, shall obtain and consider. (4) Before granting or refusing permission under sub-section (3), the Village Panchayat, shall obtain and consider. (a) a report of the Inspector of Factories appointed under the Factories Act 1948 (Central Act 63 of 1948) or of an officer of the Industries Department not below the rank of an Industries Extension Officer having jurisdiction over the area regarding the adequacy of ventilation, light etc., and sufficiency of the height and size of the rooms and doors and the suitability of exits to be used in case of fire in the plan of factories, workshop, workplace or premises if they came within the purview of the Factories Act, 1948 (Central Act 63 of 1948) and such other matters as may be prescribed; (b) a report of the District Medical Officer regarding the possibility of nuisance or pollution if the connected load of the machinery proposed to be installed exceeds 25 HP or if the nature of the machinery and installation are such that it may cause nuisance or pollution; and (c) a report of the Divisional Fire Officer or any other officer authorised by him regarding the adequacy of fire prevention and fire fighting measures planned if the proposed industry involves the use of high tension power or inflammable or explosive materials: Provided that, no report under clause (b) shall be called for in respect of any industry if the applicant produces a declaration recommended by an officer of the Industries Department authorised in this behalf or by the Kerala State Pollution Control Board to the effect that such industry would not cause pollution. (5) The grant of permission under this section, - (a) Shall be subject to the conditions to be observed in respect of the replacement of machinery the levy of fees and to such restrictions and conditions as may be prescribed; (b) Shall not be deemed as exempted from observing the provisions contained in section 235 (F) and 235 (H) or 235 (P) and 235 (Q)].” Rules 5, 6 & 12 of the Licensing Rules as they stood prior to the amendment brought in through the Kerala Panchayat Raj (Issue of Licence to Dangerous and Offensive Trades and Factories) Amendment Rules, 2017, were as follows: “5. Application for licence.--The owner or occupier of every place used for the purposes specified in Schedule I shall within thirty days of the publication of the notification, submit to the Secretary application for licence for the use of such place for such purpose. 6. In the case of application, decision has to be taken by the President.—The President may by order in writing and subject to such restrictions and regulations as he thinks fit, issue such licence or in public interest refuse to issue the same. In the case of refusal of licence the reasons for such refusal shall be mentioned in such order. 12. Application to be made for constructing or establishing factory, workshop or workplace wherein steam power or other power is to be used. —(1) Every person intending,— (a) to construct or establish any factory, workshop or workplace wherein it is proposed to use steam power, water power or other mechanical power or electricity; or (b) to install, on any land a machinery or manufacturing plant operated by steam power, water power or other power as aforesaid, not being machinery or manufacturing plant exempted under Rule 16, shall submit an application in writing before the Village Panchayat for permission to undertake such work before so constructing or establishing. (2) The application shall specify the maximum number of workers proposed to be employed on a day in the factory, workshop, workplace or on the land and shall be accompanied by.— (i) the plan of the factory; workshop, workplace or the land prepared in such manner as directed by the officer authorised by Government; and (ii) the details in respect of power, machinery; plant or land that the Village Panchayat may call for in this behalf. (3) The Village Panchayat shall, as soon as maybe after the receipt of the application, within 45 days in the case of obtaining no objection certificate from other establishments and within 30 days in other cases,— (a) grant the permission applied for either absolutely or subject to such condition as it thinks fit to impose, or (b) refuse permission, if it is of the opinion that such construction or establishment is objectionable by reason of high density of population in the neighborhood or that it is likely to cause nuisance; or (c) where the application has not been disposed of within the specified time, licence shall be deemed to have been issued; or (d) the Secretary shall, in the case of factories, industrial establishments etc, with machinery having capacity of less than 5 horse power and not causing pollution after accepting the fee for licence, without the no objection certificate of another establishments or the special permission of the Village Panchayat, issue licence. (4) Appeal against the decision of the Village Panchayat may be submitted before the Green Channel Counter and the Village Panchayat is liable to implement the decision thereon. 5. A brief narration with respect to the developments in the case law on the point, will be beneficial to have a correct appreciation of the question referred for decision. In one among the earliest decisions of this court, Manjapra Grama Panchayat v. State of Kerala (1996 KHC 388) a learned Judge, after referring to the history and development of law based on 73rd Amendment of the Constitution as well as the consequent enactment of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, observed that, the legislative intent was to endow the panchayats with such powers and authority to enable them to function as institutions of self government. The learned Judge emphasised the duties cast upon the panchayats by virtue of S.166 of the Act, on matters which are enumerated in the IIIrd Schedule of the Act. On the facts, it was a case where the applicant before the panchayat had obtained certificates issued from the Pollution Control Board and District Medical Officer of Health. But the court observed that, even if a no-objection certificate is obtained from the Pollution Control Board and/or from the District Medical Officer of Health, it does not mean that the panchayat should automatically give licence to the applicant. But the court observed that, even if a no-objection certificate is obtained from the Pollution Control Board and/or from the District Medical Officer of Health, it does not mean that the panchayat should automatically give licence to the applicant. Under the Licensing Rules, while entertaining an application seeking permission for establishment of any factory, work place etc., the panchayat need only to consult and shall have due regard to the opinion of the District Medical Officer of Health or any other authority authorised by him, as per Rule 12 of the Licensing Rules. That does not mean that the panchayat should give licence automatically, as soon as the no-objection certificate is obtained. It was found that, over and above the powers vested on the Pollution Control Board under the pollution control laws, as well as the powers vested on the District Medical Officer of Health under the Travancore-Cochin Public Health Act, the Panchayat itself has got statutory duty and obligation under the Act. The mere fact that the District Medical Officer of Health and the Pollution Control Board had issued no-objection certificates, it does not mean that the panchayat should give licence to an applicant. In other words, the panchayat itself could independently consider as to whether by setting up of the unit within its area it would affect the people of the locality. The panchayat has got such powers and duties to enable them to function as institutions of self government. Therefore the mere fact that the District Medical Officer has issued certificate stating that he has no objection, it does not mean that the panchayat is bound to give licence. On the basis of the above said findings, the appellate order issued by the Deputy Director of Panchayats and also the order in revision passed by the State Government directing the Grama Panchayat to issue licence to the applicant, were quashed in the said case. 6. A Division Bench of this court in Action Council v. Benny Abraham (2001 KHC 485) had clarified the decision in Manjapra Grama Panchayat (supra) by holding that, it has to be seen that the scope of the enquiry by the District Medical Officer, the Pollution Control Board and by the other statutory authorities is only to see whether an industrial unit, if established, would be offensive or dangerous to human life, health or property. Once the competent experts give their clearances with regard to those aspects, the panchayat has certainly to rely on those materials. Based on such opinions it is open to the panchayat to insist upon to satisfy appropriate conditions included in the licence. It was found that the power vested on the panchayat under Ss.232 and 233 of the Act is coupled with corresponding duties and any authority vested with power has a corresponding duty too. Reliance was placed on a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Commissioner of Police v. Gordhandas ( AIR 1952 SC 16 ), wherein it was held that the public authorities cannot play fast and loose with the powers vested in them. The persons to whose detriment orders are made are entitled to know with exactness of precision as to what they are expecting to do or forebear from doing and exactly what the authority is making the order. The Division Bench observed that, under the Act there is no prohibition in setting up of an industry unless otherwise notified or decided. Therefore a person of ordinary intelligence has a right to get his application for a new industry considered in accordance with the law. The exercise of powers is not discretionary but imperative in such circumstances. Being public authorities, there is no absolute discretion vested on the panchayat in the matter of issue of permission/licence to an industry. Unless the power on the panchayat is thus understood, it would amount to infringement of the fundamental freedom guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India, is the finding. It is held that, the provisions under Ss.232 and 233 of the Act read with the relevant provisions in the Licensing Rules are not too vague to be understood by an ordinary man. Having understood from the statute what is prohibited and what is permitted and having taken steps in furtherance of what is permitted, and what is not permitted, the authority cannot arbitrarily deny the permission/licence. That would amount to violation of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution, which is subject only to reasonable restrictions. That reasonable restriction, which in fact is enjoyment of a right, shall not be arbitrary or excessive and beyond what is required in the interest of the public. That would amount to violation of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution, which is subject only to reasonable restrictions. That reasonable restriction, which in fact is enjoyment of a right, shall not be arbitrary or excessive and beyond what is required in the interest of the public. The statutory indication under the Act and the Rules in the matter of permission/licence is only that, it shall not be offensive or dangerous to human life to health or property. Hence if an entrepreneur produces sufficient positive clarification from the competent authorities, then the panchayat is liable to act on the same and to issue the permission/licence, unless bound by valid policy reasons. It was also found that, the case in Manjapra Grama Panchayat (supra) was rendered based on the Licensing Rules of 1963, where the panchayat was required only to consult and to have due regard to the opinion of the District Medical Officer and other authorities. That is not the situation in the Rules issued in 1996. Viewed from that angle also, the decision in Manjapra Grama Panchayat (supra) requires clarification as stated above, is the finding, 7. But the Division Bench decision in Action Council (supra) was challenged before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. In the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Action Council v. Benny Abraham (2002 (2) KHC 416) it was held that, the panchayat had refused the permission/licence for installation of the metal crusher machine on ascribing four specific reasons as to why it came to the conclusion that it would not be in public interest to grant such licence. All those reasons, in the opinion of the Hon’ble Apex Court, were found to be germane to the issue and cannot be held to be arbitrary or fictitious. Therefore it was found that, the Division Bench of this court had seriously erred in issuing the impugned direction in exercise of the powers vested under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, against an order of a statutory authority. Since the Apex Court had set aside the judgment of the Division Bench, the clarifications made to the decision in Manjapra Grama Panchayat (supra) cannot be considered as a precedent having any binding force. 8. Next in the series is another Division Bench ruling of this court, Bosco Antony (supra). It was a Writ Petition filed seeking police protection for running of an Abkari shop. 8. Next in the series is another Division Bench ruling of this court, Bosco Antony (supra). It was a Writ Petition filed seeking police protection for running of an Abkari shop. While discussing the question regarding entitlement to get police protection, the Division Bench also considered about the powers of the panchayat to refuse the licence for establishing an Abkari shop within its limit. The shop owner contended that the earlier provisions contained in sub-section (2), (3) and (4) to S.232 governing the grant of permissions for running of toddy shops, stand deleted from the statue with effect from 24-03-1999. Therefore the provisions in the Licensing Rules have no efficacy as far as the toddy shops are concerned, was the contention. The Division Bench held that, even in the absence of sub-section (2), (3) and (4) of S.232, the remaining provisions contained in sub-section (1) of S.232 will support inclusion of Abkari shops in the schedule to the Rules. Therefore the contention of the petitioner was held untenable. It is held that, even if the petitioner gets the Abkari licence, he can run the shop in the panchayat area only after getting licence under the Licensing Rules, from the Panchayat. We are of the opinion that the ruling in Bosco Antony (supra) has no direct bearing on the issue involved in the case at hand. 9. M/s. Gem Granites (supra) is also another Division Bench decision on the subject. There also the case was one for police protection for operating a granite quarry, for which requisite permissions were obtained under the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 and under the Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1967 (Kerala). Question arose as to whether the activity further requires permission/licence from the Grama Panchayat under Ss.232 and 233 of the Act, read with relevant provisions of the Licensing Rules. This court found that, the provisions of the Act and the Licensing Rules and the provisions of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act and the Rules framed thereunder, operate in different fields and they occupy different areas. One, inter alia, is concerned with the well being of the people of the Grama Panchayat by regulating the dangerous and offensive trades. One, inter alia, is concerned with the well being of the people of the Grama Panchayat by regulating the dangerous and offensive trades. If a dangerous and offensive trade takes place at a mine or a quarry, permit or licence is required, notwithstanding a lease granted under provisions of the Minor Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act and under the Rules framed thereunder. Therefore it was held that, the license or permission under the above said Act or Rules is not a substitute for the licence/permission required under the Act and the Licensing Rules. This decision is also not exactly on the issue under consideration in the cases at hand. 10. In a still later decision, in Kadaplamattom Grama Panchayat & Anr. v. Johny Roy ( 2013 (3) KHC 857 ) a Division Bench of this court held that, where an application is submitted seeking permission to establish a factory, workshop or work place, it cannot be summarily rejected stating that the panchayat has taken a policy decision not to permit any such establishments within its limits, under provisions of Ss.166(1), 232 and 233 of the Act or under the Licensing Rules. Such decisions will affect the constitutional rights of individuals to carry on business or trade and to put their property to its best advantages. On the other hand, it was held that, the panchayat will have to consider each application on its own merit and to decide whether permission could be granted or not. 11. The decisions in Action Council (supra), Gem Granites (supra) and various other decisions of this court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court were elaborately considered in a relatively recent decision, in Ramapuram Grama Panchayat (supra). It was held that the Division Bench ruling of the High Court in Action Council (supra) cannot be treated as a binding precedent to form an opinion because the Hon’ble Supreme Court had set aside the judgment on the finding that the four conditions ascribed by the panchayat need not be interfered with. But the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court was distinguished and the same was found to be only on its own facts and context, which is also clear from the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 12. But the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court was distinguished and the same was found to be only on its own facts and context, which is also clear from the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 12. In Ramapuram Grama Panchayat (supra), the panchayat had filed Writ Appeal challenging the judgment of the Single Judge directing the panchayat to grant licence for quarrying operations, for which the entrepreneur has obtained environmental clearance from SEIAA, consent to operate from Pollution Control Board, permit from the Controller of Explosives and no-objection from the District Medical Officer etc. But the Panchayat refused to grant the licence considering a report submitted by its Secretary. It was held by the Division Bench that the panchayat cannot take a view that they have a right to prevent any activity in the property for public purposes. A permit/licence can be rejected only if there is possibility of pollution and if it affects the neighbourhood in any manner due to the density of population. When substantial provisions are made for ensuring that the mining activities are being done in an environment friendly manner, it is not open for the panchayat to take a different view from what has been taken by the expert authorities. The Division Bench found that, in the light of the expert view, the reasons stated by the panchayat are not justified, nor can it be said that the panchayat can obtain other expert opinion to deny such permission. On the facts, the Division Bench observed that, the panchayat was evaluating upon the clearance granted by the Department of Environment and Climatic Change. The question is as to whether the panchayat can take a different view from what was taken by the competent authorities. The court, after extracting and analysing the report submitted to the panchayat by the members in the Sub Committee, held that, the provisions of S.232, 233 and 234 of the Act as well as the relevant Rules in the Licensing Rules would clearly show that the Act and the Licensing Rules stand by themselves and those provisions are not dependent upon any decision to be rendered based on any other statute. The view taken by the Single Judge that the panchayat authorities are bound by provisions of the Act and the Licensing Rules, was affirmed. 13. The view taken by the Single Judge that the panchayat authorities are bound by provisions of the Act and the Licensing Rules, was affirmed. 13. Analysis of the legal precedents narrated above would make it clear that, the issue with respect to the primacy of the powers of the panchayats was under direct consideration only in the decisions in Manjapra Grama Panchayat (supra), Action Council (supra) (both the High Court and Supreme Court decisions) and in Ramapuram Grama Panchayat (supra). Of course, Gem Granites (supra) and Nagaroor Grama Panchayat (supra) are also decisions on incidental issues. It is pertinent to note that, in the reference order passed by the learned Single Judge it was observed that, the decision in Ramapuram Grama Panchayat (supra) had distinguished the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Action Council (supra), as the same was found to be rendered only in the context that the four grounds projected by the panchayat to decline the licence are sustainable. It is mentioned that, the ruling in Gem Granites (supra) was also distinguished on the basis that it was dealing only with the question as to whether permission was required from the panchayat for establishing a quarrying unit, when licence was obtained under Minor Mineral Concession Rules. The learned Judge observed that, Gem Granites (supra), Bosco Antony (supra) and Nagaroor Grama Panchayat (supra) have taken a view which is different from Ramapuram Grama Panchayat (supra). The same view was expressed in the reference order passed by the Division Bench also. But it is to be noted that, the view that the panchayat is vested with primacy in its powers to decline the licence/permission, was actually evolved for the first time through the decision of the Single Judge in Manjapra Grama Panchayat (supra). When the Division Bench held in Gem Granites (supra) that permission of the panchayat is necessary, despite the licence obtained under the Mines and Minerals Act, it only fortified such a view. So also, when it is held in Bosco Antony (supra) that despite issuance of Abkari licence the panchayat has got powers under sub-rule (1) of Rule 232, the primacy of the power of the panchayat was again reiterated. So also, when it is held in Bosco Antony (supra) that despite issuance of Abkari licence the panchayat has got powers under sub-rule (1) of Rule 232, the primacy of the power of the panchayat was again reiterated. In Nagaroor Grama Panchayat (supra) also it was held that, provisions of the Act and the Licensing Rules are independent and they stand by themselves and that those provisions are not dependent on any decision to be rendered on the basis of any other statute. So all three decisions mentioned above are in the nature of supporting the view taken in Manjapra Grama Panchayat (supra). 14. The question to be examined is as to whether there is any contrary view taken in Ramapuram Grama Panchayat (supra). The Division Bench in that case, after extracting all the 20 reasons pointed out by the Sub Committee of the Grama Panchayat, found that the reasons 1 to 4 relate to environmental clearance granted by SEIAA, which were apparently not within the jurisdiction of the panchayat. With reference to reasons 5 to 8 noted therein, it was found that no expert opinion of any competent authority was relied upon by the panchayat and they themselves have formed such an opinion. It was found that, the sub committee had not consulted any expert body nor they had taken assistance of any experts in the field. With reference to the reasons stated in 9 to 17 and 20 it was observed that they also relate to environmental issues. Therefore it was observed that, whether the reasons 5 to 8, 18 & 19 will come within the area of consideration of the panchayat, in terms of S.233 has to be considered. Referring to sub-section (3) of S.233, it was observed that, the secretary has to enquire and report as to whether the establishment of the factory, workshop or workplace is objectionable by reason of the density of population in the neighbourhood and possibility to cause nuisance or pollution. The village panchayat has to consider the report of the Secretary and such other authorities under sub-section (4). Finding is that, the very fact that the village panchayat has to call for a report of the Secretary and also the opinion of the experts specified in sub-section (4), is to enable the village panchayat to arrive at a proper decision. The village panchayat has to consider the report of the Secretary and such other authorities under sub-section (4). Finding is that, the very fact that the village panchayat has to call for a report of the Secretary and also the opinion of the experts specified in sub-section (4), is to enable the village panchayat to arrive at a proper decision. Therefore the question is as to whether any other materials were available with the panchayat to reject a valid application. The Division Bench found that, in the case at hand, there was no material available to indicate that the rejection was on account of the fact that it is objectionable by reason of the density of population in the neighbourhood and possibility of causing nuisance or pollution, as envisaged under S.233 of the Act. Specific conclusion in the decision in Ramapuram Grama Panchayat (supra) is that, the panchayat cannot take a view that it has a right to prevent any activity in the property for public purposes. It was found that, a permission/licence can be rejected only if there is possibility of pollution and if it affects the neighbourhood in any manner due to the density of population. The said observation can only be considered as one upholding sub-section (3) of S.233. Sub-section (3)(b) provides about the specific power of the panchayat to refuse the permission for reasons to be recorded. Finding is that the reason for rejection should be the reasons contained in sub-section (3), that it is objectionable by reason of the density of population in the neighbourhood and possibility to cause nuisance or pollution. 15. In short, the decision in Ramapuram Grama Panchayat (supra), in our view, had only fortified the dictum that, for a refusal of the permission/licence the panchayat should be convinced that the unit in question is objectionable by reason of the density of population in the neighbourhood and possibility of causing nuisance or pollution and that such decision could be formed only on the basis of report of the Secretary which should contain the opinion of experts also. The premise on which the permission can be refused is reiterated in the provisions of Sub-rule (3)(b) of Rule 12, which say that if the panchayat is of the opinion that such construction is objectionable by reason of the high density of population in the neighbourhood or that it is likely to cause nuisance, it can refuse the permission. Therefore, it is evident that the decision in Ramapuram Grama Panchayat (supra) has not in any manner negatived the power vested on the Grama Panchayat to refuse the licence on the basis of the reason that it is objectionable due to the high density of population in the neighbourhood and that it is likely to cause pollution or nuisance. What was clarified is only that, such decision ought to have the support of proper materials collected by the Secretary in his report, which should have the basis of expert opinion also. Therefore it cannot be said that the decision in Ramapuram Grama Panchayat (supra) had fully taken away the principle of primacy of powers of the panchayat, with respect to taking a decision either to grant or to refuse the licence. Nor it cannot be found that, the dictum contained in Ramapuram Grama Panchayat (supra) will in any manner be held as a proposition that the panchayat is bound to grant permission/licence, whenever the expert authorities have issued clearance, subject to any conditions incorporated in their consents/permissions/ no- objection certificates. 16. Under the above mentioned circumstances, we are of the opinion that the reference need to be answered only to the extent of clarifying that the power vested on the Grama Panchayat to grant or refuse an application for installation of a factory, workplace or machinery is not absolutely or fully dependent upon the clearances/permissions/no objections/ licences issued by other authorities or experts. But the panchayats will be well within its powers to refuse the permission if it is convinced that the establishment of such factory, workshop or work place or machinery is objectionable by reason of the density of population in the neighbourhood and on possibility of causing nuisance or pollution. But the panchayats will be well within its powers to refuse the permission if it is convinced that the establishment of such factory, workshop or work place or machinery is objectionable by reason of the density of population in the neighbourhood and on possibility of causing nuisance or pollution. But the exercise of such power should have a definite basis and support of the materials collected by the panchayat through report of the Secretary which should be based on the opinion of experts or export bodies and which should not have been contrary to any of the expert opinion already procured by the panchayat on the basis of the mandatory requirement contained in the Act and in the Licensing Rules. 17. With the above narrated conclusions we could have answered the reference. But Sri.George Poonthottam, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner has brought to our notice that, the relevant provisions in the Act and in the Licensing Rules had undergone drastic changes. There occurred very vital changes in the entire scenario with respect to powers vested on the panchayats and its Secretaries in refusing the permission for construction or establishment of factories, workshop or workplace and for installation of machinery. 18. The Kerala Investment Promotion and Facilitation (No.2) Act, 2018 (Act 14/2018) which was notified by the Government in the Official Gazette on 7th April, 2018 (hereinafter referred to as Act 14/2018), was enacted for giving effect to certain proposals of the Government of Kerala to avoid delay in granting various lincences, permissions, approvals, clearances required under various enactments and to provide for other matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. The preamble of the Act 14/2018 reads as follows: “Whereas, it is expedient to give effect to certain proposals of the Government of Kerala to avoid delay in granting various licences, permissions, approvals, clearances required under various reqirements and provide other matter connected therewith or incidental thereto:” Act 14/2018 was brought into effect retrospectively from 20th October 2017, presumably with effect from the date of the ordinance promulgated in this regard which was repealed by Act 14/2018. By virtue of S.2 of Act 14/2018 amendments were brought into S.232, 233 and 233A of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994. The heading of S.233 of the Act; “DANGEROUS AND OFFENSIVE TRADES AND FACTORIES’’ was substituted as, ‘INDUSTRIES, FACTORIES, TRADES, ENTERPRENEURSHIP ACTIVITIES AND OTHER SERVICES”. By virtue of S.2 of Act 14/2018 amendments were brought into S.232, 233 and 233A of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994. The heading of S.233 of the Act; “DANGEROUS AND OFFENSIVE TRADES AND FACTORIES’’ was substituted as, ‘INDUSTRIES, FACTORIES, TRADES, ENTERPRENEURSHIP ACTIVITIES AND OTHER SERVICES”. In sub-section (1) of S.232 the words “being purposes in which the opinion of Government is likely to be offensive or dangerous to human life or health or property” were omitted. Sub-section (2) of S.233 of the Act was amended by inserting the words “or officer authorised by the Secretary” after the word ‘’Secretary”. After sub-section (2) of S.233, a new sub-section as (2A) was introduced, which reads as follows: “(2A) The Secretary or officer authorised by him shall issue an acknowledgment to the applicant, on receipt of application along with the supporting documents in the form, as may be prescribed, and shall verify the application and all supporting documents on the spot itself, and if any supporting document is not found attached along with the application, the Secretary or officer authorised by him shall, immediately inform the applicant in writing the list of missing documents and allow the applicant to submit the missing documents as early as possible, but not later than five days from the date of receipt of application”. Sub-section (3) of S.233 was totally substituted as follows: “(3) the Secretary or officer authorised by him shall, as soon as may be, after receipt of the application enquire and report to the Village Panchayat as to whether the establishment of the factory, workshop or workplace or other installation of machinery or manufacturing plant for which permission is applied for is objectionable by reason of density of population in the neighbourhood and possibility to cause nuisance or pollution and the Village Panchayat, after having considered the application and the reports of the Secretary and of such other authorities as specified in sub-section (4) may, as expeditiously as possible, within thirty days, grant the permission either absolutely or subject to such conditions as it thinks fit to impose.” In sub-section (4) of S.233, the words “or refusing” contained after the words “before granting” were omitted. Likewise for the words “Village Panchayat” the word “Secretary” was substituted. Likewise for the words “Village Panchayat” the word “Secretary” was substituted. So also in sub-clause (b) of sub-section (4) of S.233 after the words “the report of the District Medical Officer” the words “in case the applicant is a hospital, clinic, paramedical institution, clinical laboratories or other health care institution” were inserted. After sub-section (5) of S.233 a new sub-section (6) was introduced as follows: “(6) If any order, on an application for permission under this section is not communicated to the applicant within thirty days from the date of receipt of application by the Secretary, the application shall be deemed to have been allowed for the period required in the application subject to the Act, rules and bye laws and all conditions which would have been imposed and if any violation is noticed later, the Secretary shall have the power to cancel the licence after giving a show cause notice to the applicant stating the reason for such cancellation and after examining the submission if any, made within the time specified in the said notice and on such cancellation the Secretary may impose a penalty on the applicant for an amount not exceeding rupees five lakhs.” 19. Consequent to the amendment of Ss.232 and 233 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, the Government of Kerala had amended the Licensing Rules with drastic changes through a notification, S.R.O. 674/17 (G.O.(P) N.80/2017/LSGD) dated 31st October 2017. The title of the Rule itself was amended as the Kerala Panchayat Raj (Issue of License to Factories, Trades, Entrepreneurship, Activities and other Services) Rules. The most relevant amendments effected in Rule 12 of the Licensing Rules are enumerated hereunder. In sub-rule (1) of Rule 12 instead of the word “Village Panchayat” the word “Secretary” was substituted. The power to refuse permission contained under sub-clause (b) of sub-rule (3) of Rule 12 was substituted as follows; “(b) if it is of the opinion that such construction or establishment is objectionable by reason of high density of population in the neighbourhood and is likely to. The power to refuse permission contained under sub-clause (b) of sub-rule (3) of Rule 12 was substituted as follows; “(b) if it is of the opinion that such construction or establishment is objectionable by reason of high density of population in the neighbourhood and is likely to. cause nuisance the Secretary shall as soon as may be after the receipt of application obtain an expert opinion of department concerned with regard to the determination of the nuisance or its abatement, at the cost of the owner or person in charge of the factory, workshop, workplace or machinery concerned and such report shall be furnished as soon as possible but not later than fifteen days of reporting of such nuisance and the village panchayat shall issue permission subject to such conditions as may be required for abatement of nuisance, if any as recommended in the expert opinion of the concerned department or”. Sub clause (c) and (d) of sub-rule (3) of Rule 12 was also substituted as follows: “if any order on an application for permission under this Act or rule is not communicated to the applicant within fifteen days from the date of receipt of application by the Secretary the permission shall be deemed to have been issued for the period required in the application subject to the Act, rules and bye laws and all conditions which would have been imposed; or (d) in the proviso to clause (b) of sub-rule (7) after the words “or functioning with the recognition of Industries Department” the words “or declared by Kerala State Pollution Control Board as Green and white category industries” shall be inserted.” For a better appreciation of the amendments brought into effect with respect to S.233 of the Act as well as to Rule 12 of the Licensing Rules, a comparative chart of those provisions is attached below: Original provision Amended provision DANGEROUS AND OFFENSIVE TRADES AND FACTORIES INDUSTRIES, FACTORIES, TRADES, ENTREPRENEURSHIP ACTIVITIES AND OTHER SERVICES. 232................................... 232................................... 233. Permission for the construction of factories and the installation of machinery - (1) No person shall, without the permission of the village panchayat and except in accordance with the conditions specified in such permission,- 233. 232................................... 232................................... 233. Permission for the construction of factories and the installation of machinery - (1) No person shall, without the permission of the village panchayat and except in accordance with the conditions specified in such permission,- 233. Permission for the construction of factories and the installation of machinery - (1) No person shall, without the permission of the village panchayat and except in accordance with the conditions specified in such permission,- (a) construct or establish any factory, workshop or workplace in which it is proposed to employ steam power, water power or other mechanical power, or electrical power; or (a) construct or establish any factory, workshop or workplace in which it is proposed to employ steam power, water power or other mechanical power, or electrical power; or (b) install in any premises any machinery or manufacturing plant driven by any power as aforesaid, not being machinery or manufacturing plant exempted by the (provisions of this Act or the rules made there under). (b) install in any premises any machinery or manufacturing plant driven by any power as aforesaid, not being machinery or manufacturing plant exempted by the (provisions of this Act or the rules made there under). [(2) An application for permission under sub-section (1) shall be submitted to the village panchayat addressed to the Secretary in such form and with such details as prescribed. [(2) An application for permission under sub-section (1) shall be submitted to the village panchayat addressed to the Secretary or officer authorised by the Secretary in such form and with such details as prescribed. (2A) The Secretary or officer authorised by him shall issue an acknowledgement to the applicant, on receipt of application along with supporting documents in the form, as may be prescribed, and shall verify the application and all supporting documents on the spot itself, and if any supporting document is not found attached along with the application, the Secretary or Officer authorised by him shall, immediately inform the applicant, in writing the list of missing documents and allow the applicant to submit the missing documents, as early as possible, but not later than five days from the date of receipt of application. (3) The secretary shall, as soon as may be after the receipt of the application, enquire and report to the village panchayat as to whether the establishment of the factory, workshop or workplace or other installation of machinery or manufacturing plant for which permission is applied for is objectionable by reason of density of population in the neighbourhood and the possibility to cause nuisance or pollution and the village panchayat after having considered the application and the reports of the secretary, and of such other authorities as specified in sub-section (4) may as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within sixty days,- (3) the Secretary or the Officer authorised by him shall, as soon as may be, after the receipt of the application enquire and report to the Village Panchayat as to whether the establishment of the factory, workshop, workplace or other installation of the machinery or manufacturing plant, for which permission is applied for, is objectionable by reason of density of population in the neighbourhood and possibility to cause nuisance or pollution and the village panchayat, after having considered the application and the report of the secretary and of such other authorities as specified in subsection (4) may as expeditiously as possible, within thirty days, grant the permission either absolutely or subject to such conditions as it thinks fit to impose. (a) grant the permission either absolutely or subject to such conditions as it thinks fit to impose; or (b) refuse the permission for the reasons to be recorded. (a) grant the permission either absolutely or subject to such conditions as it thinks fit to impose; or (b) refuse the permission for the reasons to be recorded. (4) Before granting or refusing permission under sub-section (3), the village panchayat, shall obtain and consider.- (4) Before granting permission under sub-section (3), the Secretary, shall obtain and consider.- (a) a report of the Inspector of Factories appointed under the Factories Act, 1948 (Central Act 63 of 1948) or of an officer of the Industries Department not below the rank of an Industries Extension Officer having jurisdiction over the area regarding the adequacy of ventilation, light etc, and sufficiency of the height and size of the rooms and doors and the suitability of exits to be used in case of fire in the plan of factories, workshop workplace or premises if they came within the purview of the Factories Act, 1948 (Central Act 63 of 1948) and such other matters as may be prescribed; (a) a report of the Inspector of Factories appointed under the Factories Act, 1948 (Central Act 63 of 1948) or of an officer of the Industries Department not below the rank of an Industries Extension Officer having jurisdiction over the area regarding the adequacy of ventilation, light etc. and sufficiency of the height and size of the rooms and doors and the suitability of exits to be used in case of fire in the plan of factories, workshop workplace or premises if they came within the purview of the Factories Act, 1948 (Central Act 63 of 1948) and such other matters as may be prescribed; (b) a report of the District Medical Officer regarding the possibility of nuisance or pollution if the connected load of the machinery proposed to be installed exceeds 25HP or if the nature of the machinery and installation are such that it may cause nuisance or pollution; and (b) a report of the District Medical Officer in case the applicant is a hospital, clinic, paramedical institution or clinical laboratory or other healthcare institution regarding the possibility of nuisance or pollution if the connected load of the machinery proposed to be installed exceeds 25HP or if the nature of the machinery and installation are such that it may cause nuisance or pollution; and (c) a report of the Divisional Fire Officer or any other officer authorised by him regarding the adequacy of fire prevention and fire fighting measures planned if the proposed industry involves the use of high tension power or inflammable or explosive materials; (c) a report of the Divisional Fire Officer or any other officer authorised by him regarding the adequacy of the fire prevention and fire fighting measures planned if the proposed industry involves the use of high tension power or inflammable or explosive materials; Provided that, no report under clause (b) shall be called for in respect of any industry if the applicant produces a declaration recommended by an officer of the Industries Department authorised in this behalf or by the Kerala State Pollution Control Board to the effect that such industry would not cause pollution. Provided that, no report under clause (b) shall be called for in respect of any industry if the applicant produces a declaration recommended by an officer of the Industries Department authorised in this behalf or by the Kerala State Pollution Control Board to the effect that such industry would not cause pollution. Provided that, no report under clause (b) shall be called for in respect of any industry if the applicant produces a declaration recommended by an officer of the Industries Department authorised in this behalf or by the Kerala State Pollution Control Board to the effect that such industry would not cause pollution. (5) The grant of permission under this section,- (5) The grant of permission under this section,- (a) Shall be subject to the conditions to be observed in respect of the replacement of machinery the levy of fees and to such restrictions and conditions as may be prescribed; (a) Shall be subject to the conditions to be observed in respect of the replacement of machinery the levy of fees and to such restrictions and conditions as may be prescribed; (b) Shall not be deemed as exempted from observing the provisions contained in Section 235 (F) and 235 (H) or 235 (P) and 235 (Q). (b) Shall not be deemed as exempted from observing the provisions contained in Section 235 (F) and 235 (H) or 235 (P) and 235 (Q).] (6) If any order, on an application for permission under this section is not communicated to the applicant within thirty days from the date of receipt of application by the secretary, the application shall be deemed to have been allowed for the period required in the application subject to the Act, rules and byelaws and all conditions which would have been imposed, and if any violation is noticed later, the secretary shall have the power to cancel the license after giving a show cause notice to the applicant stating the reason for such cancellation and after examining the submission if any, made within the time specified in the said notice, and on such cancellation, the secretary may impose a penalty on the applicant for an amount not exceeding rupees five lakh. Original provision Amended provision THE KERALA PANCHAYAT RAJ (ISSUE OF LICENCE TO DANGEROUS AND OFFENSIVE TRADES AND FACTORIES) RULES, 1996 THE KERALA PANCHAYAT RAJ (ISSUE OF LICENCE TO FACTORIES, TRADES, ENTREPRENEURSHIP ACTIVITIES AND OTHER SERVICES) RULES, 1996 12. Application to be made for constructing or establishing factory, workshop or workplace wherein steam power or other power is to be used.- (1) Every person intending,- 12. Application to be made for constructing or establishing factory, workshop or workplace wherein steam power or other power is to be used.- (1) Every person intending,- 12. Application to be made for constructing or establishing factory, workshop or workplace wherein steam power or other power is to be used.- (1) Every person intending,- (a) to construct or establish any factory, workshop or workplace wherein it is proposed to use steam power, water power or other mechanical power or electricity; or (a) to construct or establish any factory, workshop or workplace wherein it is proposed to use steam power, water power or other mechanical power or electricity; or (b) to install, on any land a machinery or manufacturing plant operated by steam power, water power or other power as aforesaid, not being machinery or manufacturing plant exempted under rule 16, shall submit an application in writing before the Village Panchayat for permission to undertake such work before so constructing or establishing. (b) to install, on any land a machinery or manufacturing plant operated by steam power, water power or other power as aforesaid, not being machinery or manufacturing plant exempted under rule 16, shall submit an application in writing before the Secretary for permission to undertake such work before so constructing or establishing. (2) The application shall specify the maximum number of workers proposed to be employed on a day in the factory, workshop, workplace or on the land and shall be accompanied by.- (2) The application shall specify the maximum number of workers proposed to be employed on a day in the factory, workshop, workplace or on the land and shall be accompanied by.- (i) the plan of the factory, workshop, workplace or the land prepared in such manner as directed by the officer authorised by Government; and (i) the plan of the factory, workshop, workplace or the land prepared in such manner as directed by the officer authorised by Government; and (ii) the details in respect of power, machinery, plant or land that the village panchayat may call for in this behalf. (ii) the details in respect of power, machinery, plant or land that the village panchayat may call for in this behalf. (ii) the details in respect of power, machinery, plant or land that the village panchayat may call for in this behalf. (3) The village panchayat shall, as soon as may be after the receipt of the application within 45 days in the case of obtaining no objection certificate from other establishments and within 30 days in other cases,- (3) The village panchayat shall, as soon as may be after the receipt of the application and within 30 days in all cases,- (a) grant the permission applied for either absolutely or subject to such condition as it thinks fit to impose, or (a) grant the permission applied for either absolutely or subject to such condition as it thinks fit to impose, or (b) refuse permission, if it is of the opinion that such construction or establishment is objectionable by reason of high density of population in the neighbourhood or that it is likely to cause nuisance; or (b) If it is of the opinion that such construction or establishment is objectionable by reason of high density of population in the neighbourhood and is likely to cause nuisance the Secretary shall as soon as may be after receipt of application obtain an expert opinion of Department concerned with regard to the determination of the nuisance or its abatement, at the cost of the owner or person in charge of the factory, workshop, workplace or machinery concerned and such report shall be furnished as soon as possible but not later than 30 days of reporting of such nuisance and the village panchayat shall issue permission subject to such condition as may be required for abatement of nuisance, if any as recommended in the expert opinion of the concerned department; or (c) where the application has not been disposed of within the specified time, licence shall be deemed to have been issued; or (c) if any order on an application for permission under this Act or rule is not communicated to the applicant within 30 days from the date of receipt of application by the Secretary, the permission shall be deemed to have been issued for the period required in the application subject to the Act, rules and byelaws and all conditions which would have been imposed; or (d) the Secretary shall, in the case of factories, industrial establishments etc, with machinery having capacity of less than 5 horse power and not causing pollution after accepting the fee for licence, without the no objection certificate of another establishments or the special permission of the village panchayat, issue licence. (d) the Secretary shall, in the case of factories, industrial establishments etc, with machinery having capacity of less than 5 horse power and not causing pollution after accepting the fee for licence, without the no objection certificate of another establishments or the special permission of the village panchayat, issue licence. (4) Appeal against the decision of the village panchayat may be submitted before the Green Channel Counter and the village panchayat is liable to implement the decision thereon (4) Appeal against the decision of the village panchayat may be submitted before the Green Channel Counter and the village panchayat is liable to implement the decision thereon. (5) Before granting permission under sub-rule (3), the village panchayat shall,- (5) Before granting permission under sub-rule (3), the village panchayat shall,- (a) if the factory, workshop, workplace or the land comes within the purview of the Factories Act, 1948, obtain the approval of the Inspector of Factories appointed under the said Act, having jurisdiction over the village panchayat area or if there is more than one such inspector, of the inspector, designated by the Government in this behalf by general or special order as regards the plan of the factory, workshop, workplace or premises with reference to,- (a) if the factory, workshop, workplace, or the land comes within the purview of the Factories Act, 1948, obtain the approval of the Inspector of Factories appointed under the said Act, having jurisdiction over the village panchayat area or if there is more than one such inspector, of the inspector, designated by the Government in this behalf by general or special order as regards the plan of the factory, workshop, workplace or premises with reference to,- (i) the adequacy of the provision for ventilation and light; (i) the adequacy of the provision for ventilation and light; (ii) the sufficiency of the height and dimensions of the rooms and doors; (ii) the sufficiency of the height and dimensions of the rooms and doors; (iii) the suitability of the exits to be used in case of fire; and (iii) the suitability of the exits to be used in case of fire; and (iv) such other matters as may be prescribed by the Government. (iv) such other matters as may be prescribed by the Government. (iv) such other matters as may be prescribed by the Government. Provided that no approval of the Inspector of Factories is necessary if there is approval of the Green Channel Counter in respect of the light structure of the room and the utility thereof. Provided that no approval of the Inspector of Factories is necessary if there is the approval of the Green Channel Counter in respect of the light structure of the room and the utility thereof. (b) consult and take into consideration, the opinion of the Officer authorised in this behalf, as regards the suitability of the site of the factory, workplace or the land for the purpose specified in the application; and (b) consult and take into consideration, the opinion of the Officer authorised in this behalf, as regards the suitability of the site of the factory, workplace or the land for the purpose specified in the application; and (c) in respect of matters that may be specified by the Government by general or special order consult with the Divisional Fire Officer the precautionary measures to be taken against out break of fire. (c) in respect of matters that may be specified by the Government by general or special order consult with the Divisional Fire Officer the precautionary measures to be taken against out break of fire. (6) A worker may be employed on any day in a factory, workshop, workplace or on land coming under the purview of the Factories Act, 1948 only after obtaining the permission granted under sub–rule (3) authorising such employment or after submitting application before the village panchayat for fresh permission authorising such employment. Before granting such permission the panchayat shall obtain the approval of the Inspector of Factors mentioned in clause (a) of sub-rule (5), in respect of the matters specified therein as regards the plan of the factory, workshop, workplace or the land. (6) A worker may be employed on any day in a factory, workshop, workplace or on land coming under the purview of the Factories Act, 1948 only after obtaining the permission granted under – rule (3) authorising such employment or after submitting application before the village panchayat for fresh permission authorising such employment. (6) A worker may be employed on any day in a factory, workshop, workplace or on land coming under the purview of the Factories Act, 1948 only after obtaining the permission granted under – rule (3) authorising such employment or after submitting application before the village panchayat for fresh permission authorising such employment. Before granting such permission the panchayat shall obtain the approval of the Inspector of Factors mentioned in clause (a) of sub-rule (5), in respect of the matters specified therein as regards the plan of the factory, workshop, workplace or the land. (7) The grant of permission under this section,- (7) The grant of permission under this section,- (a) shall be subject to such restrictions and conditions as may be specified by the Government in respect of replacing machinery, levying fees, the conditions that shall be followed etc; and (a) shall be subject to such restrictions and conditions as may be specified by the Government in respect of replacing machinery, levying fees, the conditions that shall be followed etc; and (b) if any rules exist in respect of constructing buildings in the panchayat areas, it shall not be considered not necessary to follow such rules: (b) if any rules exist in respect of constructing buildings in the panchayat areas, it shall not be considered not necessary to follow such rules. Provided that the industrial units constructed within an industrial estate under the Industries Department or functioning with the recognition of the Industries Department, may be granted permission for construction, considering them as a single unit if the same has the approval of the Industries Department. Provided that the industrial units, constructed within an industrial estate under the Industries Department or functioning with the recognition of the Industries Department or declared by Kerala State Pollution Control Board as Green and White category industries may be granted permission for construction, considering them as a single unit if the same has the approval of the Industries Department. Similarly, no prior licence shall be necessary for the installation of industrial establishments in the industrial estates, industrial growth centres, industrial development plots, industrial development areas and other sites approved by the Industries Department and such establishments may, after remitting the prescribed fee for licence, construct the building and may install machineries and start functioning. Similarly, no prior licence shall be necessary for the installation of industrial establishments in the industrial estates, industrial growth centres, industrial development plots, industrial development areas and other sites approved by the Industries Department and such establishments may, after remitting the prescribed fee for licence, construct the building and may install machineries and start functioning. Similarly, no prior licence shall be necessary for the installation of industrial establishments in the industrial estates, industrial growth centres, industrial development plots, industrial development areas and other sites approved by the Industries Department and such establishments may, after remitting the prescribed fee for licence, construct the building and may install machineries and start functioning. Explanation.- The word 'worker' in sub-rules (2) and (6) of this rule shall, in relation to any factory, workshop, workplace or land, has the same meaning as in the Factories Act, 1948. Explanation.- The word 'worker' in sub-rules (2) and (6) of this rule shall, in relation to any factory, workshop, workplace or land, has the same meaning as in the Factories Act, 1948. From the comparative chart given above it is clear and evident that sub-section (3) of S.233 has undergone drastic changes. Under the unamended provisions, when an application for permission is received by the Secretary, he was obliged to enquire and submit a report to the Village Panchayat as to whether the establishment of the factory, workshop, workplace or other installation of machinery or manufacturing plant, for which the permission is applied for, is objectionable by reason of density of population in the neighbourhood and possibility to cause nuisance or pollution. The Village Panchayat after having considered the application and the report of the Secretary, and of such other authorities as specified in sub-section (4) was bound to take a decision as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within sixty days. Sub-clause (a) of sub-section (3) provided that the Village Panchayat can grant the permission either absolutely or subject to such conditions as it thinks fit to impose. Sub-clause (b) of sub-section (3) enabled the Village Panchayat to refuse the permission for the reasons to be recorded. 22. Sub-clause (a) of sub-section (3) provided that the Village Panchayat can grant the permission either absolutely or subject to such conditions as it thinks fit to impose. Sub-clause (b) of sub-section (3) enabled the Village Panchayat to refuse the permission for the reasons to be recorded. 22. Under the amended provisions of sub-section (3) of S.233 of the Act, the Secretary or the officer authorised by him should conduct an enquiry and submit report to the Village Panchayat as to whether the establishment of the factory, workshop, workplace or other installation of machinery or manufacturing plant, for which the permission is applied for, is objectionable by reason of density of population in the neighbourhood and possibility to cause nuisance or pollution. The Village Panchayat on consideration of the application and the report of the Secretary and of such other authorities as specified in sub-section (4) may as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within thirty days grant the permission either absolutely or subject to such conditions as it thinks fit to impose. Sub-clause (a) and (b) of sub-section (3) contained in the unamended provisions were omitted through the amendment. Sub-clause (b) of sub-section (3) which enabled the Village Panchayat to refuse the permission for reason to be recorded, was omitted from the statute book. It gives a clear indication that the power of the Village Panchayat to refuse the permission has been taken away by the legislature. 23. Consequent to the above noted amendments to S.233 of the Act, the Licensing Rules were also amended. From the chart given as above it is evident that Rule 12 had undergone drastic changes. Under the unamended provision of sub-rule (3) of Rule 12 the Village Panchayats were obliged to consider the application for permission within 45 days in case of obtaining no objection certificates from other establishments and within 30 days in other cases either to grant permission applied for, absolutely or subject to conditions or to refuse permission if it is of the opinion that such construction or establishment is objectionable by reason of high density of population in the neighbourhood or that it is likely to cause nuisance. The power vested on the Village Panchayat to refuse the permission as mentioned above contained under sub-clause (b) of sub-rule (3) of Rule 12, was amended drastically. The power vested on the Village Panchayat to refuse the permission as mentioned above contained under sub-clause (b) of sub-rule (3) of Rule 12, was amended drastically. Under the amended sub-clause (b) it is provided that, if the Village Panchayat is of the opinion that the construction or establishment is objectionable by reason of high density of population in the neighbourhood and is likely to cause nuisance, the Secretary shall as soon as may be after receipt of the application obtain an expert opinion of the department concerned with regard to determination of nuisance or its abatement, at the cost of the owner or person in-charge of the factory, workshop, workplace or machinery concerned and such report shall be furnished to the Village Panchayat as soon as possible not later than 30 days of reporting such nuisance. Further it is provided that, on furnishing of such report of the concerned department, the Village Panchayat shall issue permission subject to such conditions as may be required for abatement of the nuisance if any, as recommended in the expert opinion of the concerned department. From the amendment incorporated under Rule 12(3) it is clear and evident that the power vested on the Village Panchayat to refuse the permission based on the opinion that the construction or establishment is objectionable by reason of high density of population in the neighbourhood or that itself likely to cause nuisance, has been taken away by the legislature. Through the amendment it is clarified that if the Village Panchayat is of the opinion that the construction or establishment is objectionable by reason of high density of population in the neighbourhood and is likely to cause nuisance, then the Secretary shall obtain an expert opinion of the department concerned and shall place such report for consideration of the Village Panchayat. There also the Village Panchayat is only authorised to issue permission subject to such conditions as may be required for abatement of the nuisance, as recommended in the expert opinion of the concerned department. Therefore it is clear and evident that the power vested on the Village Panchayat to refuse the permission has been taken away by virtue of the amendments. 24. As mentioned in the foregoing paragraphs, the amendments specified above were introduced through the Kerala Investment Promotion and Facilitation(No.2) (Act 14/2018). Therefore it is clear and evident that the power vested on the Village Panchayat to refuse the permission has been taken away by virtue of the amendments. 24. As mentioned in the foregoing paragraphs, the amendments specified above were introduced through the Kerala Investment Promotion and Facilitation(No.2) (Act 14/2018). The object of introducing such an Act, as specified therein, is intended to give effect to certain proposals of the Government of Kerala to avoid delay in granting various licences/permissions, approvals and clearances required under-various enactments. Therefore the intention of the legislature to bring such drastic amendment is clear and explicit. Hence it is to be observed that, from the date of enforcement of the amendments from 20th October, 2017, it cannot be said that Village Panchayats have got primacy of power to take an independent decision to reject the applications for permission/licence under provisions of the Act and the Licensing Rules, for construction or for establishment of any factory workshop or work place. On the other hand, the Grama Panchayats (Village Panchayats) are obliged to grant permissions in cases where the authorities mentioned under S.233 of the Act had issued such permissions or consents or no-objection certificates. Even if the panchayat is of the opinion that the construction or establishment of the factory, workshop or workplace is objectionable by reason of high density of population in the neighbourhood and is likely to cause nuisance, then also the panchayat can only obtain expert opinion from the department concerned and it is obliged to issue permission for such construction or establishment subject to such conditions as may be required for abatement of the nuisance, if any, as may be recommended in the expert opinion of the concerned department. 25. Under the above mentioned circumstances the reference is answered by upholding the view taken in Ramapuram Grama Panchayat (supra) as the correct law. But we make it clear that the legal position has been changed by virtue of the amendments as mentioned above and the Village Panchayats do not enjoy any primacy of their power to refuse the applications seeking permission for construction or establishment of any factory workshop or workplace, under S.233 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, on and from the date of enforcement of the amendments. 26. Hence the reference is answered as above. 26. Hence the reference is answered as above. The Writ Petitions are sent back to the Single Judge dealing with the subject matter as per roster, for disposal on merits by taking note of the reference answered as above