IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 8103 of 2007(M)
1. K.M.AISHA, W/O.LATE ALI,KARAPPAM VEETTIL
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE KANDANNISSERY GRAMA PANCHAYAT ,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.M.P.ASHOK KUMAR
For Respondent :SRI.P.RAMACHANDRAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :15/02/2010
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
-------------------------
W.P.(C.) No.8103 of 2007 (M)
---------------------------------
Dated, this the 15th day of February, 2010
J U D G M E N T
Challenge in the writ petition is against Ext.P7.
2. Ext.P7 is an order passed by the respondent Panchayat
on an appeal filed by the petitioner, requiring the petitioner to
produce consent issued by the Pollution Control Board for issuing
licence pursuant to Ext.P4 application made by the petitioner.
3. The petitioner is running a SSI unit. The Unit did not
have licence issued by the Panchayat. She made Ext.P4 application.
During the pendency of the application, the Panchayat issued Ext.P5
stop memo requiring the petitioner to stop further work in the
industrial unit for want of licence issued by it. That order was
challenged before this Court and by Ext.P6 judgment, the petitioner
was relegated to pursue appellate remedy before the Panchayat.
Accordingly the petitioner filed an appeal and Ext.P7 order was
passed on the appeal.
4. A reading of Ext.P7 shows that the Panchayat has
WP(C) No.8103/2007
-2-
expressed its willingness to issue licence, on the production of
consent order issued by the Pollution Control Board.
5. In my view, no fault can be found on the part of the
Panchayat in having asked the petitioner to produce consent order
from the Pollution Control Board, which is a statutory requirement,
and since a complaint was also made by a neighbour that the
industry is causing pollution to the area. That apart, from Ext.P7
itself, it is evident that proceedings were initiated on the complaint
made by the neighbour mentioned therein, who is not made a party
to this writ petition.
6. Another contention raised by the petitioner is that
licence is not required to be obtained, as according to the
petitioner, this was not an area which was notified by the Panchayat
as per Section 232 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act. In my view, it is
not open to the petitioner to raise this plea primarily for the reason
that it was on the application made by the petitioner for licence that
Ext.P7 order has been issued.
Having regard to all the above, I see no merit in the
contentions raised. However, having regard to the fact that the
WP(C) No.8103/2007
-3-
petitioner is running the industrial unit on the basis of the interim
orders passed by this Court, it is directed that if the petitioner
obtains and produces consent order as required in Ext.P7 within one
months from today, orders will be passed on her application for
licence, and that in the meanwhile, interim order passed by this
Court will remain in force.
This writ petition is disposed of as above.
(ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE)
jg