Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 418 (KER)

Denson K. S. v. Kavalangad Grama Panchayat

2020-05-20

ALEXANDER THOMAS

body2020
ORDER : Alexander Thomas, J. 1. The case set up in the W.P.(C.) is as follows: That the Government of Kerala granted quarrying lease to the petitioner as Lease No. KM-12081885 dated 10.8.2017. Subsequently, the District Environment Impact Assessment Authority (DEIAA) has inspected the site and issued Environmental Clearance Certificate to the above quarry as No. P/8681/2016 dated 23.6.2017. Exts. P1 to P3 shows that all the authorities concerned have given consent, permission and licenses to conduct quarrying operations in the property and are satisfied with all the aspects. Ext. P3 D/O license issued by the 2nd respondent has expired on 31.3.2020. Thereafter, the petitioner has submitted an application before the 2nd respondent for renewal of license. That the 2nd respondent is duty bound to renew D and O license after verifying the records and after being satisfied that the petitioner is eligible to get license to conduct quarrying operations. Though the petitioner has submitted an application for renewal of license for conducting the quarry, the application was not disposed of within a period of thirty days as provided under S. 236(3) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994. The 2nd respondent is duty bound to pass orders on the application mentioned in Ext. P4 receipt. 2. It is in the light of these averments and contentions that the petitioner has filed the instant W.P.(C.) with the following prayers: (I) "issue a writ of Mandamus, or any other writ, order or direction commanding the 2nd respondent to consider and pass orders on the application for the renewal of D and O license under the provisions of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act. (II) Issue a writ of Mandamus or any other writ, order or direction commanding the 2nd respondent to renew D and O license mentioned in Ext. P4 receipt within such time as may be fixed by this Hon'ble Court. (III) Declare that the petitioner has a deemed license for conducting the quarrying operations in Sy. No. 492/4-1 of Pindimana Village, Ernakulam District, based on his application dated 4.3.2020, which shall operate till the end of the financial year. (IV) Issue such other writ, order or direction that this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and to allow this Writ petition, in the interest of justice." 3. Heard Sri. Binu Paul, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. (IV) Issue such other writ, order or direction that this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and to allow this Writ petition, in the interest of justice." 3. Heard Sri. Binu Paul, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. K.J. Manuraj, learned Government Pleader appearing for R3 (District Geologist). In the nature of the orders proposed to be passed in this petition, notice to R1 and R2 (Kavalangad Grama Panchayath) will stand dispensed with. 4. The main grievance of the petitioner projected in this writ proceedings is that the renewal of petitioner's trade license for the conduct of the quarry submitted on 4.3.2020 (acknowledged as per Ext. P4 receipt dated 4.3.2020) is unnecessarily kept pending by the 2nd respondent-Secretary of the Kavalangad Grama Panchayat and that no decision is been taken thereon etc. 5. Sri. Binu Paul, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has also placed reliance on the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in the case in Tomy Thomas v. State of Kerala ( 2019 (3) KLT 987 (FB)). It is profitable to refer para Nos. 22 to 24 of the aforecited Full Bench judgment of this Court in Tomy Thomas v. State of Kerala ( 2019 (3) KLT 987 (FB)), pp. 1010-1012. 6. In para No. 24 of the aforecited judgment, the Full Bench of this Court has unequivocally held that the Grama Panchayat concerned is obliged to grant permission in cases, where the authorities mentioned under S. 233 of the Act has issued such permissions or consents or no objection certificates etc. 7. It is contended by the petitioner that the trade license was issued in favour of the petitioner by the 2nd respondent initially as per Ext. P3 'dated 1.4.2019 for the year 2019-20 and that the petitioner has all the requisite consents, permissions and no objections from all the competent statutory authorities concerned for running and conduct of the quarry. 8. It is also pointed out fairly by Sri. P3 'dated 1.4.2019 for the year 2019-20 and that the petitioner has all the requisite consents, permissions and no objections from all the competent statutory authorities concerned for running and conduct of the quarry. 8. It is also pointed out fairly by Sri. Binu Paul, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that enquirers have revealed that some persons have given complaints before the respondent-Panchayat against the running of the petitioner's quarry raising unnecessary' and untenable objections and that petitioner has no objection whatsoever, if this Court directs the 2nd respondent-Secretary of the Grama Panchayat to grant reasonable opportunity of being heard to such objectors as well while hearing the petitioner, in case, such objectors have already filed written objections to the 2nd respondent Panchayat against the renewal of the petitioner's trade license for the conduct of the quarry etc. 9. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case, it is ordered in the interest of justice that the 2nd respondent-Secretary of the Kavalangad Grama Panchayat will take up for consideration the application submitted by the petitioner on 4.3.2020 (as acknowledged as Ext. P4 receipt) for renewal of his trade license for running the quarry for the year 2020-21 and after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioner as well as any objectors who have filed written objections before the Panchayat as aforesaid, without much delay, preferably within a period of three weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this judgment. 10. The Registry will forward a copy of this judgment to R2 for necessary information and compliance. The petitioner will also produce a copy of the memorandum of the W.P.(C.) with all the exhibits along with certified copy of this judgment before R2 for necessary information and further action. With these observations and directions, the above W.P.(C.) will stand finally disposed of.