IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C) No. 27334 of 2003(D)
1. PEPSICO INDIA HOLDINGS PVT. LTD.,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA,
... Respondent
2. PUDUSSERY GRAMA PANCHAYAT(SPECIAL GRADE)
3. THE KERALA INDUSTRIAL SINGLE WINDOW
For Petitioner :SRI.ANTONY DOMINIC
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice MR.K.S.RADHAKRISHNAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.N.KRISHNAN
Dated :10/04/2007
O R D E R
WPC 27334/03 and 27736/04 1
K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, Ag. C.J. & M.N. KRISHNAN, J.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
W.P.C. Nos. 27334 of 2003 and 27736 of 2004
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dated: 10th April 2007
JUDGMENT
Radhakrishnan, Ag. C. J.
The cardinal question to be considered in these cases is whether the
second respondent Panchayat has got jurisdiction either to issue or cancel
the licence granted to the petitioner for setting up the factory at Kanjikode
situated in an industrial area notified as Integrated Industrial Township,
Palghat by the Government of Kerala vide SRO No 730/01 issued by
notification G.O. 672/2001/AD dated 24.7.2001 in exercise of the powers
conferred by clause (f) of Sections 2 and 5 of the Kerala Industrial Single
Window Clearance Boards and Industrial Township Area Development Act,
1999 (Act 5 of 2000), in short Development Act.
2. Petitioner is a private limited Company registered under the
Companies Act engaged in the manufacture, bottling and sale of soft
drinks like Pepsi, Mirinda, Seven Up etc., the factory of which is set up in
the industrial area, Kanjikode. The petitioner company had made an
application for the issue of licence for setting up of a factory in an industrial
WPC 27334/03 and 27736/04 2
area through the Kerala State Industrial Development Corporation Limited
(K.S.I.D.C) to the Single Window Clearance State Board constituted under
the Kerala Industrial Single Window Clearance Boards and Industrial
Township Area Development Act, 1999 (in short “the Development Act”).
The State Board after considering the application preferred by the petitioner
directed the second respondent to grant necessary permission / industrial
license to the petitioner for putting up the factory in the industrial area.
The second respondent on receiving the recommendation from the State
Board issued a license in favour of M/s ABMC for a period of five years
from 2000-2001 to 2004-2005 evidenced by Ext. P4.
3. Petitioner has been carrying on the manufacturing process
complying with all the statutory requirements and at no point of time they
have violated any of the conditions in Ext P4. Due to some public agitation
against the functioning of the factory the petitioner had to move this court
for police protection and protection was granted by this court as per order
dated 20.01.2003. The second respondent later issued a notice No A4
262/2000 to show cause why the licence should not be cancelled due to the
allegation of over exploitation of ground water by the petitioners and the
consequent shortage of drinking water. Ext. P5 is the notice dated
20.05.2003 served on the petitioners. Petitioner submitted a reply denying
WPC 27334/03 and 27736/04 3
the allegation and also submitted that the Panchayat has no jurisdiction
either to issue or cancel licence issued to the petitioner since the power to
grant licence or to cancel the licence vests with the Board constituted under
the Development Act, 1999. Petitioner also referred to the notification,
G.O. No 672/2001/AD dated 24.7.2001 notifying the area as an Integrated
Industrial Township, Palghat and the petitioner’s factory is situated in that
area. Further it was also stated that the Government have constituted a
Single Window Clearance Board for the said area known as “the Integrated
Industrial Township Single Window Clearance Board”, Palghat and powers
are vested in that Board under the provisions of the Development Act.
4. Petitioner was however served with Order No A4-353/2003 dated
22.08.2003 by the Panchayat cancelling the license. Aggrieved by the same
petitioner has approached this court by filing W.P.C. No 27334 of 2003
seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P10 order passed by the second
respondent Panchayat and also for a direction to the second respondent to
refrain from imposing any condition/restriction to the license issued to the
petitioner without the directions from the Single Window Clearance State
Board constituted under the Development Act, 1999. Petitioner has also
filed I.A. No 3089 of 2007 seeking a declaration that the provisions of the
Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 are not applicable to the Kanjikode unit of
WPC 27334/03 and 27736/04 4
the petitioner and that the second respondent Panchayat does not have any
administrative jurisdiction over the affairs of the Kanjikode unit of the
petitioner.
5. Panchayat had accorded sanction to the petitioner company, vide
order No 242/2000 dated 5.5.2000 for the construction of building and
installation of 2000 HP electric motor on the basis of application submitted
by the company on 12.03.2000. The Company accordingly constructed the
building for its factory and installed 2000 HP electric motor at the site.
While so, the petitioner unit situated at Kanjikode was notified as an
industrial area under the Integrated Industrial Township, Palghat with
effect from 24.07.2001 by notification dated 24.07.2001. Since the area was
declared as an industrial area, the provisions of the Kerala Panchayat Raj
Act cease to have application to the industrial area in question by virtue of
sub-section (2) of Section 1 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act 1994 though at
the time when the factory was set up the area was not declared as an
industrial area. Petitioner submits that with effect from 24.07.2001 the
second respondent Panchayat ceased to have any jurisdiction over the
Kanjikode unit of the petitioner company by virtue of the express
provisions of Section 1 (2) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994.
Petitioner was however served with Ext. P4 notice dated 20.04.2004 to
WPC 27334/03 and 27736/04 5
show cause why steps shall not be taken to cancel Ext. P1 order granting
permission to the petitioner to install 2000 HP electric motor on the ground
that the petitioner has been indiscriminately extracting huge quantity of
ground water thereby drying up a number of wells in and near the locality
causing scarcity of drinking water in the Panchayat area. Petitioner replied
to the said notice pointing out that the question as to whether Panchayat has
got jurisdiction to proceed against the petitioner is already pending
consideration before this court in W.P.C. No 27334 of 2003. Objection
raised by the petitioner was however repelled and the Panchayat passed
Ext. P6 order dated 15.09.2004 in exercise of the powers conferred under
Section 182 (iii) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 cancelling the order
according sanction for the installation of 2000 HP electric motor and
direction was given to the Plant Engineer to dismantle the same. Aggrieved
by the said order petitioner has filed W.P.C. No 27736 of 2004 seeking a
writ of certiorari to quash Ext. P6 and also for other consequential reliefs.
6. Panchayat has filed a detailed counter affidavit in both the cases
maintaining the stand that it has got jurisdiction to to cancel the license
already granted and to revoke the sanction to install 2000 HP electric motor.
Panchayat has maintained the stand that the Development Act, 1999 would
not take away the rights of the Panchayat under the Kerala Panchayat Raj
WPC 27334/03 and 27736/04 6
Act in the matter of issuance or cancellation of license. Further it was
pointed out that Section 166 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act provides
authority for the Panchayat for maintenance of traditional drinking water
sources in the Panchayat as one of its mandatory duties to safeguard public
interest. It is stated that the Panchayat Raj Act was enacted by the State
Legislature consequent on the Constitution (Seventy third Amendment)
Act,1992 for securing a greater measure of participation of the people in
planned development and under Article 243-G the Legislature of a State
may, by law, endow the Panchayats with such powers and authority as may
be necessary to enable them to function as institutions of self-government.
Further it is also stated that under Section 243C of the Kerala Panchayat
Raj Act, the Panchayat is vested with the powers to implement and
maintain water supply and sewage schemes within the Panchayat area.
Panchayat pointed out that one of the important functions required to be
discharged by the Grama Panchayats under the provisions of the
Constitution of India read along with the Panchayat Raj Act is to ensure and
maintain supply of pure drinking water to the people in the Panchayat area.
7. The third respondent, the Kerala State Single Window Clearance
Board, has filed a detailed counter affidavit. It is stated therein that the
petitioner’s factory is established within the industrial area of the
WPC 27334/03 and 27736/04 7
Integrated Industrial Township, Palakkad in exercise of the powers
conferred by clause (f) of Section 2 and of Section 5 of the Single Window
Clearance Act. Consequently provisions of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act
are not applicable to the industrial area in question since it falls outside the
purview of Section 1(2) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act. The power to
grant license is exclusively conferred on the State Board by virtue of the
Development Act, 1999 and the authorities are bound to act according to
the Board’s function under the Development Act, 1999.
8. We heard Senior Counsel Sri A.L.Somayaji for the petitioners, Sri
Kallada Sukumaran for the Panchayat, Senior Government Pleader Sri T.B.
Hood for the State and Senior Counsel Sri M. Pathros Matthai for the third
respondent.
9. Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners has raised various
contentions regarding the matters raised in the writ petitions and
highlighted the various functions of the authority functioning under the
Development Act. Counsel also referred to the decision of the apex court in
Solapur MIDC Industries Association v. State of Maharashtra and others
(1996) 9 SCC 621). Counsel appearing for the Panchayat reminded us of
the duties and responsibilities of the Panchayat under the Panchayat Raj Act
and stated that the reasons stated for cancellation of license do not justify
WPC 27334/03 and 27736/04 8
the fact that there has been over exploitation of ground water by the
petitioner company. In support of this contention counsel also made
reference to the decision of this court in Manjapra Grama Panchayat v.
State of Kerala (1996 (2) KLT 719) and Action Council v. Benny Abraham
(2001 (2) KLT 690).
10. Article 243-G states that subject to the provisions of the
Constitution, the Legislature of a State may, by law, endow the Panchayats
with such powers and authority as may be necessary to enable them to
function as institutions of self-government and such law may contain
provisions for the devolution of powers and responsibilities upon
Panchayats at the appropriate level, subject to such conditions as may be
specified therein with respect to the preparation of plans for economic
development and social justice, the implementation of schemes for
economic development and social justice as may be entrusted to them
including those in relation to the matters listed in the Eleventh Schedule.
Eleventh Schedule contains 29 entries. Entry 3 relates to minor
irrigation,water management and watershed development, drinking water
and so on. By virtue of Article 243G the State enacted the Kerala
Panchayat Raj Act, 1994. The Legislature in its wisdom excluded the areas
which are within the limits of the Cantonments, Nagar Panchayats,
WPC 27334/03 and 27736/04 9
Municipal Councils, Municipal Corporation and the Industrial areas of the
State. We may extract the exclusion provision for easy reference.
(1) This Act may be called the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994
(2) It extends to the whole of the State of Kerala except the
areas which are within the limits of the Cantonments, Nagar Panchayats,
Municipal Councils, Municipal Corporations and the Industrial areas of the
State. Section 4 of the Act states that the Government shall, by
notification in the gazette, constitute with effect from such date as specified
in the notification, a “municipal council” for a smaller urban area and a
Municipal Corporation for a larger urban area. Proviso to Section 1 of the
Kerala Panchayat Raj Act states that it extends to the whole of the State of
Kerala except the areas which are within the limits of the Cantonments,
Nagar Panchayats, Municipal Councils, Municipal Corporations and the
industrial areas of the State. The term “industrial area” has not been
defined in the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act and has been excluded from the
purview of the Panchayat Raj Act. “Industrial area” has been defined in the
Development Act (Act 5 of 2000). The Development Act was enacted to
provide special provision for speedy issue of various licence clearances and
certificates required for setting up of industrial undertakings in the State of
Kerala and for the Constitution of Industrial Township Area Development
WPC 27334/03 and 27736/04 10
Authorities and for matter connected therewith. Preamble of the Act says
that it is necessary to make special provision to promote and assist the
orderly establishment and rapid growth and development of industries in the
State. For that purpose it is necessary to establish Single Window
Clearance Boards at the State District and Industrial area level. Preamble
of the Act also refers to clause (1) of Article 243 Q of the Constitution.
Statement of objects and reasons states that the Government have given
emphasis to a cluster based approach for the industrial growth of the State
and have been taking a series of steps for establishing both general and
sector specific Parks in the State with all necessary infrastructure. It is
stated that it is hence vital that empowered Single Window Clearance
Boards be set up in all such industrial areas so that the entrepreneurs can get
a comprehensive package of assistance to set up units in the identified
industrial areas. “Industrial area” has been defined in Section 2 (f) of the
Development Act, which reads as follows:
“Industrial Area means any area in the State declared to be an
industrial area by the Government by notification in the Gazette
from time to time and includes industrial estates, development
areas, development plots, mini industrial estates, industrial
parks and growth centres.”
In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (f) of sub-section (2) of
WPC 27334/03 and 27736/04 11
Section 5 of the Development Act, the Government declared the Integrated
Industrial Township, Palakkad to be an industrial area of the State and
constituted a Single Window Clearance Board for the said area to be known
as “Integrated Industrial Township Single Window Clearance Board.” In
the counter affidavit filed by the Executive Officer of the Kerala State
Single Window Clearance Board constituted under the Development Act,
1999 it has been specifically stated that the petitioner’s factory is
established within the industrial area of the Integrated Industrial Township,
Palakkad to be an industrial area of the State and has also constituted a
Single Window Clearance Board for the said area to be known as the
Integrated Industrial Township Single Clearance Board, Palakkad in view
of the Government notification dated 24.07.2001. We may in this
connection refer to Section 3 of the Act, which is extracted below for easy
reference.
“3. State Board – (1) For the purpose of speedy issue of various
licences, clearances, certificates required under various State
enactments for setting up of industrial undertakings in the State, the
Government may, by notification,constitute Single Window
Clearance Board for the State to be called the Kerala State Single
Window Clearance Board.”
WPC 27334/03 and 27736/04 12
Government therefore by notification dated 24.07.2001 constituted
integrated industrial township. It is that authority which has to deal with
the various licence clearances or certificates required under the several
State enactments for setting up small scale or large scale industrial
undertakings or industrial undertakings within the Integrated Industrial
Township, Palakkad. Integrated Industrial Township Single Window
Clearance Board is a body corporate by name of the Industrial Area for
which it is constituted having perpetual succession and a common seal.
Every Industrial Area Single Window Clearance Board shall consist of
Principal Secretary to Government, Industries Department or his nominee,
Collector of the district, Chief Executive of the Agency owning or
managing the industrial area, District Officer of the State Pollution Control
Board, District Officer of the Town Planning Department, District Medical
Officer, District Officer, Factories and Boilers Inspectorate, Divisional Fire
Force Officer, Divisional Forest Officer and so on. Representatives of the
local Panchayat are absent in the composition evidently because industrial
area has been taken out of the purview of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act,
1994. We may also refer to Section 6 of the Development Act which states
that notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in
force all industrial undertakings being established or proposed to be
WPC 27334/03 and 27736/04 13
established in industrial area shall be exempted from obtaining permits
from Municipalities or Grama Panchayats Town Planning Department or
Development Authorities for construction of buildings for starting an
industrial undertaking. Section 7 dealing with the powers and functions of
Industrial Area Boards states as follows:
Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time
being in force, every person intending to establish an industrial
undertaking or a small scale industrial undertaking in any of the
notified industrial areas shall submit the application in the prescribed
form to the designated authority of that industrial area for clearances
or licenses or certificates required under various State enactments
together with the fee if any to be paid, under the respective enactment.
(2) The Industrial Area Board shall after complying the
procedure prescribed in this behalf and within thirty days from the
date of receipt of the application take a decision as –
(a) to recommend to the authority concerned, the issue of
the licence or permission applied for without any modifications or
with such modifications as it thinks to fit to make; or
(b) to refuse clearance if it is of the opinion that the
proposed construction, establishment or installation is objectionable.
(3) The decision taken by the Industrial Areas Board shall be
communicated to the applicant and the authority concerned by the
designated authority of the Industrial Area Board.
We may in this connection refer to the definition of “District Board”
contained in Section 2 (c) of the Development Act. “District Board” means
the District Single Window Clearance Board constituted under sub-section
WPC 27334/03 and 27736/04 14
(1) of Section 4 of the Act. District Boards have been constituted under
various other State enactments. Every District Board shall consist of
Collector of the District, General Manager, District Industries Centre of the
District concerned, President of the Grama Panchayat concerned or
Chairperson of the Municipality concerned in cases where license is
required from the local bodies, District Officer of the State Pollution
Control Board and so on. The Integrated Industrial Township, Palakkad
has been declared as an industrial area in exercise of the powers conferred
by Section 5, which falls outside the purview of the Kerala Panchayat Raj
Act, 1994. Consequently Panchayat cannot exercise any power to cancel the
licence issued to the petitioner’s factory, a power which is exclusively
vested on the Board functioning under the Development Act.
11. Section 10 of the Development Act authorises the State Board,
District Board or the Industrial Area Board to issue the clearances, licenses
or certificates applied for in accordance with the recommendations of the
State Board, District Board or Industrial Area Board. Panchayat has no say
in the matter of issuing licence. Panchayat has passed a resolution on
15.5.2003 to cancel the licence to the petitioner company but it may be
noted that the industrial establishments put up in the new industrial area
are governed by the Development Act. Shortage in the availability of
WPC 27334/03 and 27736/04 15
drinking water is a perennial problem, says the Panchayat. Panchayat can
always bring this to the notice of the authorities constituted under the
Development Act and that authority can also examine whether the
industrial units are consuming excess water depleting water sources
affecting the people.
12. Panchayat it may be noted has approached this court by filing
W.P.C. No 8897 of 2004 challenging the constitutional validity of Section 1
(2) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 to the extent it excluded Nagar
Panchayats, Municipal Counsel etc. and the petitioner company got
impleaded as additional seventh respondent in the writ petition which was
subsequently dismissed as withdrawn. Reference in this connection may
be made to the decision of the apex court in Sali Gram Panchayat’s case
supra. That was a case where Grama Panchayat impugned the notifications
as well as the resolutions issued by the State Government under Section 2
(g) of the Gujarat Industrial Development Act,1962 declaring certain lands
of Village Saij as Kalol Industrial Area. Section 16 gives power to the
Government to issue notification by which it can declare that an industrial
area as defined in the Gujarat Industrial Development Act, 1962 would also
be a deemed notified area under the Gujarat Municipalities Act, 1963.
With effect from 1.6.1993, the Constitution 73rd and 74th Amendments
WPC 27334/03 and 27736/04 16
came into effect as a result of which Parts IX and IX-A were introduced in
the Constitution. Gujarat Municipalities Act was amended on 20.8.1993 in
view of the insertion of Parts IX and IX-A in the Constitution, as a result of
which an industrial area under the Gujarat Industrial Development Act,
which is notified under Section 16 of the Gujarat Industrial Development
Act would become a notified area under the new Section 264-A of the
Gujarat Municipalities Act and would mean an industrial township area
under the proviso to clause (1) of Article 243-Q of the Constitution of
India. Grama Panchayat contended that the notification issued under
Section 16 of the Act is contrary to Parts IX and IX-A of the Constitution
brought into force by the 73rd and 74th Amendments. The apex court held
that once the area is deemed notified area under the Gujarat Municipalities
Act,1964 it is equated with an industrial township under Part IX-A of the
Constitution where municipal services may be provided by industries.
Hence the court took the view that there is no violation of any constitutional
provisions of the Scheme . Facts of the above mentioned case may not
directly apply to the instant case but the principle laid down by the apex
court would support the plea of such exclusion as has been done in sub-
section (2) of Section 1 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act.
13. Panchayat in this case has raised a contention that excessive use
WPC 27334/03 and 27736/04 17
of groundwater by the petitioner is creating acute water shortage in the area
and under such circumstances the Panchayat has taken steps to cancel the
licence. Panchayat, in our view, has no jurisdiction in the matter of issue
or renewal of licence to the petitioner’s factory since the legislature in its
wisdom has excluded the area in question from the purview of the
Panchayat Raj Act in view of sub-section (2) of Section 1 of the Kerala
Panchayat Raj Act. Courts cannot be blamed for this predicament, the
legislature and the executive in their wisdom excluded the industrial area
from the purview of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, with the result that the
Panchayat cannot take steps under the Panchayat Raj Act.
14. We may however point out that the apprehension voiced by the
Panchayat cannot be lost sight of and calls for the attention of the
authorities functioning under the Kerala Ground Water (Control and
Regulation) Act, 2000 as well as the Board constituted under the
Development Act. Ground Water (Control and Regulation) Act has been
enacted to provide for the conservation of ground water and for the
regulation and control of its extraction and use in the State of Kerala. Right
to live enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution implies right to food,
water etc. Providing drinking water is the concern of the Panchayat as well
as the State. Since they have expressed their concern of depletion of
WPC 27334/03 and 27736/04 18
groundwater the authorities functioning under the Ground Water Act have a
duty to examine whether petitioner is using excessive groundwater so as to
deplete the water source affecting the people who are living in the
Panchayat area. Panchayat as well as the authorities functioning under the
Groundwater Act are equally concerned with the welfare of the people who
are residing in the Panchayat area, a matter which can always be taken up by
the Panchayat before the authorities functioning under the Ground Water
Act.
14. We have already found that the second respondent Panchayat has
no jurisdiction under the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act in the matter of issue or
cancellation of licence. Petitioner’s industry is situated in an industrial area
as notified by the Government in the notification dated 24.07.2001. In such
circumstances, we are inclined to allow both the writ petitions declaring
Ext. P10 in W.P.C. No 27334 of 2003 and Ext. P6 in W.P.C. No 27736 of
2004 are issued without jurisdiction and they are accordingly quashed.
Sd/-
K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN
Ag. Chief Justice
Sd/-
M.N. KRISHNAN
10/04/2007 Judge
en/
WPC 27334/03 and 27736/04 19
W.P.C. No 27334 of 2003
APPENDIX
Petitioner's exhibits;:
Ext.P1 – True copy of the application filed by the petitioner to the Single
Window Clearance Board dated Nil.
Ext.P2 – True copy of the letter dated 30.10.2000 issued by the fourth
respondent.
Ext.P3 – True copy of the letter dated 2.11.2000 No 48498/M2/2000/LSGD
by the first respondent.
Ext.P4 – True copy of the licence dated 22.11.2000 issued to the petitioner
by the second respondent Panchayat pursuant to the directions of the Board
and valid for a period of five years from 2000-01 to 2004-05.
Ext.P5 – True copy of the show cause notice dated 20.05.2003 issued by the
second respondent.
Ext.P6 – True copy of the letter dated 29.05.2003 of the convenor of the
Single Window Clearance Board to the Secretary of the second respondent
Panchayat.
Ext.P7 – True copy of the reply to the Ext P5 dated 3.6.2003 together with
its annexures.
Ext.P8 – True copy of the questionnaire issued to the petitioner by the
Secretary of the second respondent Panchayat dated nil.
Ext.P9 – True copy of the reply dated 16.7.2003 furnished by the petitioner
to the questionnaire as mentioned in Ext P8 herein.
Ext.P10 – True copy of ;the order No A4-353/2003 dated 22.08.2003 of the
second respondent Panchayat to the petitioner.
Ext.P11 – True copy of the report on ground water conditions at Pepsico
India Holdings (P) Ltd. Wise Park, Industrial Development Area, Kanjikode
dated 19.08.2003
Ext.P12 – True copy of report on Environmental Impact Assessment on the
ground water pumping at the petitioner’s plant prepared by Dr N.
Kittu,Member (Retd) Central Ground Water Board, dated Nil
Ext.P13 – True copy of the diagrammatical map showing the dyke zone and
geographical distance between petitioner’s plant and surrounding villages
dated Nil
Ext.P14 – True copy of the diagrammatical map demonstrating the rainwater
WPC 27334/03 and 27736/04 20
harvesting initiated by the petitioner’s plant and the recharge of the bore
wells, dated Nil.
Ext.P16 – True copy of the statement showing ground water level in
borewells 2001-2004
Ext.P17 – True copy of the statement showing details of water recharge
through various structures.
Ext.P18 – True copy of the statement showing rainfall at Kanjikode 1993-
2004.
Second Respondent’s exhibits:
Ext.R2(a) – True copy of the order No 262/2000 dated 5.5.2000 of the
Secretary of second respondent Panchayat.
Ext.R2(b) – True copy of the letter dated 13.3.2000 of the petitioner
company to the Panchayat requesting order for setting up bottling plant.
Ext.R2(c) True copy of application dated 12.03.2000 of petitioner company
to the Panchayat for sanction to construct building and install motor.
Ext.R2(d) – True copy of licence dated 22.11.2000 issued to the petitioner
company by the second respondent Panchayat.
Ext.R2(e) – True copy of letter dated 2.2.2001 of petitioner company to the
second respondent for change of name in Ext. R2(d)
Ext.R2(f) – True copy of letter dated 25.9.2001 of the petitioner company tot
he second respondent for change of name as Aradhana Beverages
Manufacturing Company
Ext.R2(g) – True copy of letter dated 01.11.2001 of petitioner company for
second respondent requesting for licence with further changed name.
Ext.R2(h) – True copy of letter dated 21.11.2001 of the petitioner company
to the second respondent requesting for permission to use crown, closures,
labels etc.
Ext.R2(i) – True copy of table showing fall of water level in open well No
142 of second respondent Panchayat
Ext.R2(j) series – True copies of representations of local people to second
respondent showing scarcity of water.
Ext.R2(k) – True copy of proceedings No LR(E)2216/03 dated 5.3.2003 of
Commission of Land Revenue declaring Palakkad districts as drought
stricken area.
Ext.R2(l) – True copy of table showing rain fall data from 1999-2002 in the
Walayar Dam Area issued by the Executive Engineer, Irrigation Division,
WPC 27334/03 and 27736/04 21
Chittoor, Palakkad
Ext.R2(m) – True copy of the letter dated 23.2.2004 of the Kerala State
Pollution Control Board to the petitioner.
Ext.R2(n) – True copy of the renewal of consent dated 6.4.2002 from the
State Pollution Control Board to the petitioner company with annexures.
Ext.R2(o)- True copy of the news report in Mathrubhoomi Cochin Edition
dated 17.10.2003
Ext.R2(p) – True copy of order G.O(Rt) No 672/2001/ID dated 24.7.2001
Ext. R2(q)- True copy of the proceedings dated 30.3.2005 of the
Commissioner of Land Revenue
Third respondent’s exhibits:
Ext.R3 (a) – True copy of statutory notification GO(Rt)No 672/2001/ID
dated 24/07/2001 issued by the first respondent.
[true copy]
WPC 27334/03 and 27736/04 22
W.P.C. No 27736 of 2004
Appendix
Petitioner’s exhibits:
Ext.P1 -True copy of permit issued to the petitioner by the second
respondent Panchayat vide Order No 262/2000 dated 05.05.2000
Ext.P2 – True copy of the Notification G.O.(Rt)No 672/2001-ID dated
24.07.01(SRO 730/2001)
Ext.P3- True copy of writ petition (Civil) No 8897 of 2004 dated
12.03.2004 as a public interest litigation.
Ext.P4 – True copy of show cause notice No A4-262/2000-04 dated
20.04.2004 issued by the 2nd respondent Panchayat
Ext.P5 – True copy of the reply to Ext P4 show cause notice dated April
24,2004
Ext.P6 – True copy of the order dated 15.9.2004 No A4-262/04 of the
second respondent Panchayat with its enclosures.
Ext.P7 – True copy of the interim order dated 22.04.2004 of the Division
Bench of this court in W.P.(C) No 27334 of 2003
Second respondent’s exhibits:
Ext. R2(a) – True copy of the application dated 12.3.2000 of the petitioner.
Ext.R2(b) – True copy of the letter dated 13.3.2000 issued by the petitioner
to the Panchayat President, Pudussery Central Village.
Ext.R2(c) – True copy of the letter No 3934 dated 30.10.2000 of the
Alternate Executive Officer, State Single Window Clearance Board.
Ext.R2(d) – True copy of the letter No 48498/M2/2000/LSGD dated
2.11.2000 of the Secretary to Government, Local Self Government
Department.
Ext.R2(f) – True copy of the letter of request of the company dated 2.2.2001
Ext.R2(g)- True copy of the letter dated 25.9.2001 issued to the Secretary
Pudussery Panchayat, Pudussery
Ext.R2(h) – True copy of the letter dated 1.11.2001 received by the second
respondent from the company.
WPC 27334/03 and 27736/04 23
Ext.R2(i) – True copy of the proceedings No LR(E) 2.216/03 dated 5.3.2003
of the Commissioner of Land Revenue
Ext.R2(j)- True copy of the rainfall data in the office of the Executive
Engineer, Irrigation Division, Chittur from 1999-2002
Ext.R2(k) – True copy of the table showing fall of water level in open well
No 142
Ext.R2(l) – True copy of the page 12 of Ext P1 and page 21 and 22 of Ext P7
in OP 27334/2003 of the petitioner.
Ext.R2(m) – True copy of the notice No PCB /H&R/PLKD /257/02 dated
26.4.2004 issued by the second respondent.
Ext.R2(n) – True copy of the Order dated 11.2.2004 in W.P.(C)No 27334 of
2003 of this court.
[true copy]