Meppayur Grama Panchayath vs Balan
2024 Latest Caselaw 12221 Ker

Kerala High Court

Meppayur Grama Panchayath vs Balan on 14 May, 2024

Author: T.R.Ravi

Bench: T.R.Ravi

W.A.No.662 of 2024             1


            IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                             PRESENT
               THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAVI
                                &
       THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISANKAR V. MENON
  TUESDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF MAY 2024 / 24TH VAISAKHA, 1946
                       WA NO. 662 OF 2024
             AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 05.04.2024
                     IN WP(C) NO.38351/2023
                            --------
APPELLANTS:

     1      MEPPAYUR GRAMA PANCHAYATH,
            MEPPAYUR, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT,
            REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
            PIN - 673524.

     2      THE SECRETARY, MEPPAYUR GRAMA PANCHAYATH,
            MEPPAYUR, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN - 673524.

            BY ADVS.
            VISHNU NARAYANAN
            ABDUL JALEEL ONATH
            K.ABOOBACKER SIDHEEQUE



RESPONDENT:

            BALAN, AGED 73 YEARS,
            SON OF KANARAN, KEEZHPAYYOOR, MEPPAYUR P.O.,
            MEPPAYUR VILLAGE, KOYILANDY TALUK,
            KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN - 673004.

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING        COME UP      FOR    ADMISSION ON
14.05.2024, THE COURT ON       THE SAME     DAY   DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
 W.A.No.662 of 2024                2



                            JUDGMENT

T.R.Ravi, J.

This writ appeal has been preferred against the judgment

dated 05.04.2024 in W.P.(C) No.38351 of 2023. The respondent

herein had submitted an application for permission to run a

granite quarry and the request was rejected by Ext.P6 order.

Ext.P6 order does not state any reasons.

2. However, in the counter affidavit filed in the writ

petition, it is stated that the granite quarry's operation will

affect the ecological balance of the area, where, a project has

been initiated by the Central Government (Jal Jeevan Mission

Project) to address the issues of the people of the locality facing

severe water scarcity issues. The learned Single Judge accepted

the contention of the petitioner that the issue is covered by the

Full Bench decision of this Court in Tomy Thomas v. State of

Kerala [2019 (3) KLT 987 (FB)] wherein it was held that

after the Amendment Act, 14 of 2018 whereby Clause (b) of

sub-section (3) of Section 233 was omitted, the power of the

Village Panchayat to refuse the permission has been taken away

by the Legislature. The judgment of the Full Bench has

subsequently been followed in several cases, one of which has

been referred to by the learned Single Judge.

3. The learned counsel for the appellant has not been able

to make out a case that the Full Bench decision does not apply

to the facts of this case.

In the above circumstances, no interference is called for in

this appeal. The writ appeal fails and is dismissed.

Sd/-

T.R.RAVI, JUDGE

Sd/-

HARISANKAR V. MENON, JUDGE ln