Kerala High Court
Najeeb Hassan vs Koppam Grama Panchayat on 24 March, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAVI
THURSDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF MARCH 2022 / 3RD CHAITHRA, 1944
WP(C) NO. 18285 OF 2021
PETITIONER:
NAJEEB HASSAN,
AGED 37 YEARS
NAMBRATH HOUSE, VALANCHERRY P.O.
MALAPPURAM 676 552.
BY ADV SRI PAUL K.VARGHESE
RESPONDENTS:
1 KOPPAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT,
PULASSERY P.O. PALAKKAD 679 307,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
2 SECRETARY,
KOPPAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT, PULASSERY P.O.
PALAKKAD 679 307.
BY ADVS.
SRI S.P.ARAVINDAKSHAN PILLAY
SMT.N.SANTHA
SRI V.VARGHESE
SRI PETER JOSE CHRISTO
SRI S.A.ANAND
SMT.K.N.REMYA
SMT.L.ANNAPOORNA
SRI VISHNU V.K.
SMT.ABHIRAMI K. UDAY
SRI KURUVILLA SABU CHRISTY
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY
HEARD ON 07.01.2022, THE COURT ON 24.3.2022 DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C)No.18285 of 2021
2
T.R. RAVI, J.
--------------------------------------------
W.P.(C)No.18285 of 2021
--------------------------------------------
Dated this the 24th day of March, 2022
JUDGMENT
The writ petition has been filed challenging Ext.P6 order
whereby the 2nd respondent has rejected an application for D&O
licence submitted by the petitioner for carrying out quarrying
operations. The reason stated in Ext.P6 is that the area where
quarrying is sought to be conducted had been affected during the
floods in 2019 and that there are objections from the owners of
neighbouring properties. It is also stated that the 2 nd respondent
had personally enquired into the issue. The contention of the
petitioner is that the order Ext.P6 is legally unsustainable in view
of the judgment of a Full Bench of this Court in Tomy Thomas v.
State of Kerala reported in [2019 (3) KLT 987], Abdulla M.P.
& Ors. v. Trippangottur Grama Panchayat & Ors. reported in
[2021 (4) KHC 550] and Malayoram Rock Products Pvt.Ltd.
(M/s.) v. Vanimel Grama Panchayat & Anr. reported in [2021
(4) KHC 398] and other cases.
2. The respondents have filed a counter affidavit
W.P.(C)No.18285 of 2021
contending that the petitioner has an alternate remedy. The
respondents have also produced complaints submitted against the
establishment of the quarry.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the
respondents.
4. The issue involved in the writ petition is no longer res
integra. In Tomy Thomas (supra), a Full Bench of this Court has
categorically held that after the amendment of Section 233 of the
Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 by Act 14 of 2018, the power of
the Village Panchayat to refuse permission has been taken away by
the Legislature. This Court has held that once the applicant
complies with all the requirements and produces all the necessary
permits/licenses which are required to be produced, the Panchayat
cannot refuse a D&O licence. The Court also held that there can
be no refusal for the reason of high density of population in the
neighbourhood or the likelihood to cause pollution or nuisance. In
Abdulla M.P. (supra) and Malayoram (supra), a learned Single
Judge has followed the Full Bench decision in Tomy Thomas
(supra) and directed issuance of D&O licence. In the above
circumstances, the petitioner is entitled to succeed in this writ
petition.
W.P.(C)No.18285 of 2021
5. The writ petition is allowed. Ext.P6 order is set aside.
The 2nd respondent is directed to reconsider the application
submitted by the petitioner for D&O licence and grant the same, if
he is otherwise entitled to, before 31.03.2022.
Sd/-
T.R. RAVI
JUDGE
dsn
W.P.(C)No.18285 of 2021
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 18285/2021
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER OF INTENT DATED
14.09.2018 ISSUED BY THE GEOLOGIST PALAKKAD.
Exhibit P1 (A) TRUE COPY OF THE CONSENT TO OPERATE DTD.
25.03.2021 ISSUED BY THE POLLUTION CONTROL;
BOARD VALID TILL 03.03.2026.
Exhibit P1 (B) TRUE COPY OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL CLEARANCE
CERTIFICATE DATED 04.03.2021 VALID TILL
03.03.2026 ISSUED BY THE SEIAA.
Exhibit P1 (C) TRUE COPY OF THE EXPLOSIVE LICENSE VALID TILL
31.03.2024.
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 16.04.2021
SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND
RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 30.04.2021
ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT ALONG WITH A
COPY OF THE DECISION DATED 26.04.2021 BEARING
NO. 5 (1) OF THE PANCHAYATH COMMITTEE OF THE
IST RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 16.05.2019
SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE
DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PALAKKAD ALONG WITH A
COPY OF THE DECISION DATED 13.05.2019 BEARING
NO. 7 (1) TAKEN BY THE PANCHAYATH COMMITTEE
OF THE IST RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 07.07.2021 IN
WPC NO. 11699/2021 ON THE FILES OF THIS
HONBLE COURT.
Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 05.08.2201 WITH
NO. B4/1857/21 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
RESPONDENTS' EXTS:
EXT.R1(A): TRUE COPY OF COMPLAINT DT.22.4.2021 SUBMITTED
BY THE RESIDENTS OF WARD NO.1 OF THE GRAMA
PANCHAYAT EXCLUDING THE PAGES SHOWING THE
SIGNATURES OF THE COMPLAINANTS.
EXT.R1(B): TRUE COPY OF MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD ON
20.4.2021.
EXT.R1(C): TRUE COPY OF REPLY RECEIVED BY SMT.RAJITHA
UNDER THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT, 2005 FROM
W.P.(C)No.18285 of 2021
THE OFFICE OF THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER AND
THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, PATTAMBI.
EXT.R1(D): TRUE COPY OF REPLY RECEIVED BY SRI
UDAYANATHAN UNDER THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION
ACT, 2005 FROM THE OFFICE OF THE AGRICULTURAL
OFFICER AND THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, PATTAMBI.
EXT.R1(E): TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DT.5.8.2021
SUBMITTED BY ADDITIONAL RESPONDENTS 3 TO 6 IN
WPC 11699/2021 BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
