Vijay Constructions vs Aikkaranadu Grama Panchayath on 12 March, 2008

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 8437 of 2008(D)


1. VIJAY CONSTRUCTIONS
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. AIKKARANADU GRAMA PANCHAYATH
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE SECRETARY

3. SCARIA MATHAI,AGED ABOUT  65 YEARS

                For Petitioner  :SRI.P.FAZIL

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE

 Dated :12/03/2008

 O R D E R
                     PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, J.
                 ----------------------------------
                  W.P.(C) NO. 8437       of 2008
                 ----------------------------------
           Dated this the 12th    day of March , 2008

                           JUDGMENT

I have heard the submissions of Sri.P.Fazil, the learned

counsel for the petitioner and Sri.K.J.Muhammed Anzar, the

learned Government Pleader.

2. Under challenge in this Writ Petition is Ext.P8 order

issued by the Panchayat directing the petitioner to stop the

operation of their Bitumen Mixer Unit on the ground that the

petitioner has not taken out any licence from the Panchayat and

also on the ground that the operation of the plant is generating

pollution of various types to the detriment of the local public. My

attention was drawn by the learned counsel for the petitioner to

Section 233B(d) of the Panchayat Raj Act. The machine in

question is a portable machine and the volume of pollution, which

is likely to be generated by this machine, will be relatively lesser

than the pollution which will be caused by concrete mixing

WPC No.8437/2008 2

machines. Bitumen Mixer Unit comes within the category of

“machines” as envisaged by Section 233B (d) of the Act and no

licence is necessary, so submits the learned counsel for the

petitioner. Submissions of the learned counsel have some appeal.

The learned counsel also drew my attention to Ext.P11 consent

given to the petitioner by the Pollution Control Board for the

Bitumen Mixer Plant in question. According to the petitioner,

nobody has so far complained to the Pollution Control Board

that any of the conditions incorporated in Ext.P11 have been

violated. There is no violation of the conditions in Ext.P11,

according to the learned counsel. I do not find any reason to

doubt the correctness of the above submissions.

3. At the same time, it is seen that obviously by way of

abundant caution the petitioner has submitted Ext.P10

application before the Panchayat. Since Ext.P10 is pending

before the Panchayat, which I am told is yet to be registered by

the Panchayat, I dispose of this Writ Petition issuing the following

directions;

i). Respondents 1 and 2 are directed to register Ext.P10

application submitted by the petitioner immediately, consider the

WPC No.8437/2008 3

same in the light of the petitioner’s contention based on Section

233B(d) and also Ext.P11, hear the petitioner as well as the third

respondent and take a correct decision on Ext.P10.

ii). The Panchayat will comply with all the directions given

herein above at the earliest and at any rate within one month of

receiving a copy of this judgment. In the meanwhile,

considering the merit prima facie noticed in the submissions of

the learned counsel for the petitioner based on Section 233 B(d),

I direct the Panchayat to keep in abeyance all coercive action

against the petitioner for implementation of Ext.P8 till the

decision is taken on Ext.P10.

PIUS C. KURIAKOSE
JUDGE.

dpk