IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C) No. 6506 of 2008(Y)
1. SAITHALY, S/O. KOCHU MARAKKAR,
... Petitioner
2. K.K.BASHEER, S/O. KHADER,
Vs
1. MINI JOSEPH, W/O. JOSEPH,
... Respondent
2. KEEZHMADU GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REPRESENTED
3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
4. THE GENERAL MANAGER,
5. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS
For Petitioner :SRI.T.K.VENUGOPALAN
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE
Dated :26/02/2008
O R D E R
PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
W.P.(c).No. 6506 OF 2008
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 26th day of February, 2008
JUDGMENT
Kerala State Single Window Clearance Board, represented by
Principal Secretary to Government in the Industries Department,
Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram is suo motu impleaded as the
additional 6th respondent. Registry will carry out necessary corrections
in the cause title.
2. Under challenge in this writ petition filed by the petitioners,
who are residents near the site where the first respondent wanted to
establish an industrial unit by name “Brothers Polymer” for production
of plastic products, is Ext.P3 decision of the District Board under The
Kerala Industrial Single Window Clearance Boards and Industrial
Township Area Development Act, 1999, Act 5 of 2000. Under Ext.P3
the District Board has interfered with Ext.P2 decision of the Panchayat
declining licence to the first respondent and recommended to the
Panchayat to issue licence to the first respondent under Ext.P3. The
convenor of the District Board ( General manger DIC) is authorised to
WPC.No.6506/08 2
issue deemed licence certificate to the first respondent in the event of
the Panchayat failing to comply with the recommendation.
3. When this writ petition came up for admission,
Sri.K.J.Mohammed Anzar, Government Pleader, has taken notice on
behalf of respondents 3 and 5. Sri.Anzar drew my attention to Section
11 of Act 5 of 2000 which provides remedy of appeal to the petitioners.
Sri.T.K.Venugopalan, counsel for the petitioners submitted that it is not
the statutory remedy of appeal provided under the Panchayat Raj Act
which was invoked against Ext.P2 and in as much as under Ext.P3,
Ext.P2 has been set aside and recommendations are issued to the
Panchayat regarding issuance of licence to the first respondent, Ext.P3
is out side the jurisdictional competence of the District Board under
Act 5 of 2000. According to him, the provisions of Act 5 of 2000
cannot override the provisions of the Panchayat Raj Act. The
submissions of Sri.T.K.Venugopalan notwithstanding, I am of the
view that the petitioners should invoke the remedies provided to them
under Section 11 of Act 5 of 2000 against Ext.P3.
4. I dispose of the writ petition relegating the petitioners to
that remedy. The petitioners are permitted to raise all available
WPC.No.6506/08 3
grounds including the jurisdictional competence of the District Board
to pass Ext.P3 in the context of the provisions in the Panchayat Raj
Act. Since Section 11 (1) provides that appeals should be filed within
30 days, if an appeal is filed now, the same will be apparently time
barred. However, having regard to the circumstance that the petitioners
are being relegated by this court to prefer an appeal, I direct the State
Board constituted under Act 5 of 2000 to entertain the appeal preferred
by the petitioners against Ext.P3 and dispose of the same in accordance
with law. If the petitioners prefer an appeal against Ext.P3 within three
weeks from today, the petitioners are permitted to urge all available
grounds in the appeal which will be disposed of by the State Board in
accordance with law. Sri.T.K.Venugopalan submits that the first
respondent has not started operations in her unit. Considering the
above submission, the first respondent is directed to maintain status
quo as obtaining today regarding the operation in her unit for a period
of ten days from today.
PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE
JUDGE
sv.
WPC.No.6506/08 4