M/S.Petra Crushers vs Koottickal Grama Panchayat
2021 Latest Caselaw 6500 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                               PRESENT

               THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN

  TUESDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 4TH PHALGUNA, 1942

                       WP(C).No.4097 OF 2021(J)


PETITIONER:

               M/S.PETRA CRUSHERS
               ELAMCADU P.O., KOOTIKKAL, KANJIRAPALLY, KOTTAYAM,
               REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER SRI.THOMAS
               P.MATHEW.

               BY ADVS.
               SRI.ENOCH DAVID SIMON JOEL
               SRI.S.SREEDEV
               SRI.RONY JOSE
               SHRI.CIMIL CHERIAN KOTTALIL

RESPONDENTS:

      1        KOOTTICKAL GRAMA PANCHAYAT
               KOTTIKKAL P.O., KOTTAYAM-686514, REPRESENTED BY ITS
               SECRETARY.

      2        SECRETARY,
               KOOTTICKAL GRAMA PANCHAYAT, KOOTTIKKAL P.O.,
               KOTTAYAM-686514.

               BY ADV. SRI. JOHNSON MATHEW

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
23.02.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
                    SATHISH NINAN, J.
         ==================
               W. P. (C) No.4097 of 2021
         ==================
        Dated this the 23rd day of February, 2021

                           JUDGMENT

The petitioner's application seeking renewal of

trade licence to operate a quarry, was rejected by the Panchayat committee on the ground of "public

protest".

2. Ext.P7 order is prima facie unsustainable on

two grounds. Firstly, the grant of licence and its

renewal are powers conferred on the Secretary and

not on the committee. The committee could not have

interfered with and pass Ext.P7 order [see Onset

Developers v. Akathethara Grama Panchayat (2015 (1) KLT 668),

Madhava Menon v. District Collector (2019 (4) KLT 608)]; secondly,

mere public protest cannot be a ground to deny the

issuance of a licence by a statutory authority

which is bound to act in accordance with the rules

[see Southern Granite Industries, TVM. v. Pallichal Grama Panchayat,

TVM and Anr. 2016 (1) KHC 207]. W. P. (C) No.4097 of 2021

Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed.

Exts.P6 and P7 orders are quashed. The second

respondent shall consider the renewal application

and pass orders thereon in accordance with law,

without delay.

Sd/-

SATHISH NINAN JUDGE

kns/-

//True Copy// P.S. to Judge WP(C).No.4097 OF 2021(J)

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE QUARRYING LEASE DATED 20.03.2012 VALID TILL 19.03.2024.

EXHIBIT P1(A) A TRUE COPY OF THE CONSENT ISSUED BY THE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD FOR CONDUCTING QUARRYING OPERATIONS VALID TILL 30.06.2023.

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE TRADE LICENSE DATED 23.01.2019 VALID UPTO 31.03.2020 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 25.01.2021 ISSUED BY THE GEOLOGIST, KOTTAYAM TO THE PETITIONER.

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 19.1.2021 ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOTTAYAM TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 12.11.2020 IN WP(C)NO.22595/2020 ON THE FILES OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.

EXHIBIT P5(A) TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 27.01.2021 IN WP(C)NO.22595/2020 ON THE FILES OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.

EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 12.02.2021 WITH NO.K5 552/2020 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.

EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION NO.9(1) DATED 09.02.2021 TAKEN BY THE PANCHAYAT COMMITTEE OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

-----