{"id":137117,"date":"2007-10-16T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-10-15T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/promoters-charitable-society-vs-vellavoor-grama-panchayath-on-16-october-2007"},"modified":"2015-09-02T06:56:28","modified_gmt":"2015-09-02T01:26:28","slug":"promoters-charitable-society-vs-vellavoor-grama-panchayath-on-16-october-2007","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/promoters-charitable-society-vs-vellavoor-grama-panchayath-on-16-october-2007","title":{"rendered":"Promoters Charitable Society vs Vellavoor Grama Panchayath on 16 October, 2007"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Promoters Charitable Society vs Vellavoor Grama Panchayath on 16 October, 2007<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nWP(C) No. 11100 of 2007(U)\n\n\n1. PROMOTERS CHARITABLE SOCIETY,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. VELLAVOOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH,\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.JOHN JOSEPH VETTIKAD\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.M.V.BOSE\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC\n\n Dated :16\/10\/2007\n\n O R D E R\n                     ANTONY DOMINIC, J.\n\n              = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =\n               W.P.(C) No. 11100     OF  2007U\n              = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =\n\n            Dated this the 16th October, 2007\n\n                       J U D G M E N T\n<\/pre>\n
     This writ petition has been filed by a Charitable
\nSociety praying for quashing Ext.P10 decision of the 1st
\nrespondent Panchayat and to direct the Panchayat to
\nrenew its licence for the conduct of a stone metal
\ncrusher unit, in the property comprised in Sy. No.232\/1
\nof Vellavoor Village.\n<\/p>\n
     2.   After obtaining necessary licences, the petitioner
\nestablished a Stone Metal Crusher Unit. Ext.P3 dated 24.05.1993
\nis the resolution of the 1st respondent to grant licence to the
\npetitioner’s unit and Ext.P4 is the licence No.4\/1993-94
\ngranted in pursuance thereof. After about a year, a suit was
\nfiled before the Munsiff’s Court, Changanassery as O.S.No.345
\nof 1994 seeking to restrain the unit from functioning and the
\nsuit was dismissed by Ext.P1 judgment. Thereafter, proceedings
\nunder section 133 of the Cr.P.C. were initiated by the Sub
\nDivisional Magistrate, Kottayam at the instance of some other
\npersons and that also resulted in Ext.P2 order holding that the
\nA party therein failed to prove any public nuisance or danger.
\nThe case was dismissed with a direction to the petitioner to
\nobtain fresh licences and permission from the authorities
\nconcerned for operating the unit.\n<\/p>\n
     3.   It is the case of the petitioner that the Kerala
\nState Pollution Control Board (`KSPCB’ for short) had granted
\nconsent for the establishment of the unit and that the same was<\/p>\n
WPC No. 11100\/07               2<\/span><\/p>\n
renewed upto 30.06.2009 by Ext.P5. In the meantime the licence
\ngranted to the petitioner had expired and Ext.P7 application
\nwas submitted for its renewal. It is averred in the writ
\npetition that Ext.P7 application was considered by the
\nPanchayat Committee on 23.03.2007 and it was resolved not to
\nrenew the licence and that copy of the resolution was not even
\nissued to the petitioner. It is at that stage, this writ
\npetition was filed on 29.03.2007.\n<\/p>\n
     4.    On 30.03.2007 when this case came up for orders,
\nthis Court has passed an interim order directing the 1st
\nrespondent to issue certified copy of the relevant Minutes of
\nthe Committee held on 23.03.2007 together with a copy of the
\nSecretary’s Report submitted before the Committee. Thereafter,
\nthe documents were given to the petitioner and along with
\nI.A.No.5346 of 2007, the Minutes of the Meeting and the Report
\nof the Secretary, were produced marking the same as Exts.P10
\nand P11 respectively.    It is stated in Ext.P10 that after
\ndetailed deliberations, it was resolved by the Panchayat to
\nobtain the expert opinion of the Kerala Water Authority, Centre
\nfor Earth Science Studies\/ Central Water Commission before the
\napplication is considered.      It was so resolved on the
\napprehension that the establishment of the unit would adversely
\naffect the proposed water supply scheme for which a Water
\nTreatment Plant was to be established in the vicinity of the
\nunit. Ext.P11 dated 12.03.2007 is the Report of the Secretary
\nof the 1st respondent, which states that the location of the
\nproposed Water Treatment Plant is about 3\/4 K.M away from the
\nsite and that in between that location and the site, there are
\ntwo other stone metal crusher units functioning.\n<\/p>\n
     5.    It is contending that if the unit is established<\/p>\n
WPC No. 11100\/07               3<\/span><\/p>\n
there is no possibility of any kind of pollution, that there
\nare two other units already functioning, that no steps have
\nbeen taken for the establishments of the Water Treatment Plant,
\nthis writ petition has been filed.        Petitioner has also
\nproduced as Ext.P8, copy of a litho plan, indicating the
\nlocation of the unit and the proposed Water Treatment Plant.
\nExt.P9 photographs have been produced stating that in the
\nproposed location there already exists a storage tank, which is
\nnot in use at all. On these averments, petitioner is seeking
\nthe relief’s mentioned above.\n<\/p>\n
     6.    On behalf of the 1st respondent, the Secretary has
\nfiled a counter affidavit producing Exts.R1(a) and (b), which
\nare Exts.P11 and P10 and stating that the application of the
\npetitioner can be considered and licence granted only after the
\nreport of the experts are obtained.\n<\/p>\n
     7.    The  President  and   Vice  President   of  the   1st
\nrespondent Panchayat, filed I.A.No.5623 of 2007 to get
\nthemselves impleaded as Addl. Respondents 2 and 3, which was
\nallowed by order dated 17.04.2007. They have filed a counter
\naffidavit contending inter-alia that the remedy of the
\npetitioner is provided under Section 276 of the Kerala
\nPanchayat Raj Act 1994. It is also stated that since the
\nPanchayat Committee has not rejected the application of the
\npetitioner but has only resolved to obtain an expert opinion
\nbefore taking a decision, the writ petition is premature. It is
\nalso their contention that the Panchayat cannot be restrained
\nfrom exercising its right as the licensing authority.\n<\/p>\n
     8.    I.A.No. 7455 of 2007 was filed by two persons
\nclaiming to be the beneficiaries of the proposed water supply
\nscheme, seeking to get themselves impleaded as Addl. Respondents<\/p>\n
WPC No. 11100\/07               4<\/span><\/p>\n
5 and 6. This court by order dated 07.06.2007 allowed their
\nimpleadment also and they have filed a counter affidavit, the
\nmain thrust of which is that the unit will affect the water
\nsupply scheme.\n<\/p>\n
     9.    This court by order dated 17.04.2007 suo moto
\nimpleaded the Kerala Water Authority (`KWA’ for short), as
\nadditional 4th respondent.    By orders dated 07.06.2007 and
\n18.06.2007 in I.A.Nos.7453 of 2007 and 8059 of 2007, the Centre
\nfor Earth Science Studies, Trivandrum (`CESS’ for short) and
\nthe Environmental Engineer, KSPCB, were impleaded as Addl.
\nRespondents 7 and 8 respectively. These additional respondents
\nhave filed statements and reports, about which detailed
\nreference will be made at a later stage.\n<\/p>\n
     10. On the above pleadings the points that arise for
\nconsideration are the following:\n<\/p>\n
 I. In view of the statutory remedy available to the
\n     petitioner, whether the writ petition is maintainable.
\n II. Whether Ext.P10 Resolution of the Panchayat is legal.
\n III. The relief to be granted in the writ petition.\n<\/p>\n
I. Point No.1: It is true that the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act
\n1994 provides statutory remedies against a decision in the
\nnature of Ext.P10. It is on this basis that respondents 2 and
\n3 are contending that the writ petition is not maintainable.
\nIt is true that ordinarily when a statutory remedy is
\navailable, the party has to pursue that remedy. However, this
\nis a rule of discretion and not one of compulsion.          In
\nappropriate cases the High Court may entertain a writ petition<\/p>\n
WPC No. 11100\/07                5<\/span><\/p>\n
even if any alternate remedy is available. In short the rule
\nof alternate remedy is only a self imposed restriction.\n<\/p>\n
     (i) That apart this writ petition was entertained by
\nthis Court.     Addl. Respondents were impleaded, both suo moto
\nand on applications made in that behalf. Counter Affidavits and
\nReports have been filed by the parties. After having done all
\nthis, it is not fair to relegate the petitioner to pursue his
\nstatutory remedy. In several cases, the apex court and this
\ncourt have held that after entertaining a writ petition,
\nkeeping it pending and hearing the arguments, the court should
\nnot throw out the same on the ground of availability alternate
\nremedy. This case does not pose any disputed question of fact
\nincapable of being resolved in this proceeding.\n<\/p>\n
     (ii) Following its decision Sri.L. Hirday Narain vs.<\/p>\n
ITO (1970 (2) SCC 355), in the case of State of H.P vs.<\/p>\n
Gujarat Ambuja Cement Ltd.<\/a> (2005 (6) SCC 499) the apex
\ncourt held that;\n<\/p>\n
     “if the High Court had entertained a petition despite
\n     availability of alternate remedy and heard the parties
\n     on merits it would be ordinarily unjustifiable for the
\n     High Court to dismiss the same on the ground of non-
\n     exhaustion of statutory remedies; unless the High Court
\n     finds that factual disputes are involved and it would
\n     not be desirable to deal with them in a writ petition”.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The law laid down by the apex court is fully applicable to the
\nfacts of this case and therefore I hold that the writ petition
\nis maintainable.\n<\/p>\n
II. Point No.2: While examining the validity of Ext.P10
\nResolution of the Panchayat, the reasons stated therein needs<\/p>\n
WPC No. 11100\/07               6<\/span><\/p>\n
to be referred to. The primary apprehension that was expressed
\nin the meeting of the Panchayat is that the functioning of the
\nunit will affect the Manimala Major Water Supply Scheme, and it
\nis on that basis the Panchayat resolved to seek expert opinion
\nfrom KWA, CESS\/ Central Water Commission.   The correctness of
\nthis resolution and the reasons stated therein, can be examined
\nonly with reference to the affidavits and reports such as
\nExt.P11 Reports of the Secretary of the Panchayat, KSPCB and
\nthe CESS and also the affidavit filed by the KWA in this Court.\n<\/p>\n
(a) Ext.P11 report of the Secretary:\n<\/p>\n
     In this Report it is stated that initially the petitioner
\nwas granted licence and that the writ ceased to function
\nfollowing the litigations. It is stated that he had inspected
\nthe premises and that the Water Treatment Plant that was
\nproposed to be installed was about 3\/4 K.M away from the unit
\nand that two stone metal crusher units were already functioning
\nin closer proximity to the site of the Water Treatment Plant.\n<\/p>\n
(b) Counter Affidavit by KWA:\n<\/p>\n
     In this affidavit the details of the Comprehensive Water
\nSupply Scheme to Manimala and adjoining Villages, have been
\nfurnished. According to KWA, the main factors to be considered
\nin the context of Air Pollution are the dust emanating from the
\nunit and the arial distance between the unit and the treatment
\nplant. It is stated that the unit is in a lower area, which
\nincreases the chances of air pollutants reaching the elevated
\nlocation of the treatment plant as the finer particles in the
\ndust having lesser density will move upwards in the atmosphere.
\nHowever, it is stated that since they are not provided with the<\/p>\n
WPC No. 11100\/07               7<\/span><\/p>\n
details of the activities in the unit, the KWA is not in a
\nposition to ascertain the actual level of pollution, vibration
\netc.   According to KWA, agencies like KSPCB, CESS, Geology
\nDepartment, who are the experts in their respective fields are
\nto be involved for conducting detailed studies.\n<\/p>\n
(c) Report of the KSPCB:\n<\/p>\n
     The Environmental Engineer had inspected the unit with
\nnotice to the respondents.    He has found that the unit has
\nsatisfactorily   provided   pollution   control  measures    in
\ncompliance with the conditions of the consent order, granted on
\n17.08.1998, for the operation of a secondary crusher of 30 HP
\ncapacity. Regarding the location of the unit the report states
\nthat;\n<\/p>\n
     “the location of the crusher unit is in a rocky region
\n     surrounded by hill-locked terrain covered by rubber
\n     estates and other plantations. There are no residences
\n     within 100 meter distance on any sides of the crusher
\n     unit.    The site proposed for the water treatment plant
\n     of the Kerala Water Authority is not in the vicinity of
\n     the crusher unit.    The location of the said site was
\n     found to be on the top plain area of the hill existing
\n     at South West direction of the crusher unit. The arial
\n     distance between the crusher unit and the site of the
\n     proposed Water Treatment Plant has been measured by the
\n     Geologist (who accompanied the scientists from the
\n     Centre for Earths, Science and Studies) under Global
\n     Positioning System using hand held G.P.S. monitor and
\n     obtained as 710 Meter. In between the existing crusher
\n     and the site for Water Treatment Plant, two Nos. of
\n     stone quarries, reported as unlicenced, were observed<\/p>\n
WPC No. 11100\/07               8<\/span><\/p>\n
     under operation.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
           Regarding the Water Treatment Plant no construction
\n     activities was seen commenced in the proposed site.
\n     According to the Assistant Executive Engineer, Kerala
\n     Water Authority, who was present during the inspection,
\n     the Government have not so far acquired the land proposed
\n     for the project.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
           Regarding the allegation that the proposed Water
\n     Treatment Plant will be subjected to the dust pollution,
\n     once the crusher unit is put into operation, I may submit
\n     that, considering the topographic virtue of the area where
\n     the crusher unit is located, and more over, the crusher
\n     unit being surrounded by lush green belt formed by tall
\n     plantations upto the area of the proposed site, the
\n     anticipation\/ allegation of dust pollution to the Water
\n     Treatment Plant due to the operation of the crusher unit
\n     is highly impracticable even without adoption of any
\n     pollution control measures at the unit”.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The report also states that under the stringent conditions
\nimposed in the consent order,<\/p>\n
     “any dust pollution even at the boundary of the premises
\n     of the crusher unit beyond safety level is ruled out”.\n<\/p>\n
The report concludes by saying;\n<\/p>\n
     “And, it is further submitted that, the crusher unit has
\n     provided pollution control measures as per consent
\n     conditions satisfactorily.    And if the crusher unit
\n     plant is operated in compliance with the consent<\/p>\n
WPC No. 11100\/07               9<\/span><\/p>\n
     conditions of the Board, no any pollution problems due
\n     to the operation of the crusher unit beyond the safer
\n     limit prescribed under the Environmental (Protection)
\n     Rule is anticipated”.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
(d) Report submitted by CESS:\n<\/p>\n
     After a detailed study, the CESS concludes its report with
\nthe following Conclusion and Recommendations:\n<\/p>\n
     “The study revealed that reopening the Crusher would
\n     have no impact on the proposed water tank. The crusher
\n     activity   with   all   precautionary  measures   causes
\n     negligible stress than quarrying and blasting.       The
\n     activity of the crusher installed at the site may not
\n     affect any structures beyond a safe distance of 250 m.
\n     However, a safer distance of 500 m for water storage
\n     structures   may   be   maintained.      The   following
\n     recommendations are made based on the study:-
\n     The reopening of the Crusher unit installed by M\/s.
\n     Promoters Charitable Society at Vellavoor is feasible
\n     subject to the following conditions:-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
1.   The proprietor should maintain the greenery of the site.\n<\/p>\n
     Surrounding the property a green belt with the width of
\n     about 25 m – 30 m with native species may be planned and
\n     gradually developed.\n<\/p>\n
2.   The crusher operation should be restricted to daytime
\n     preferably between 8 AM – 6 PM.\n<\/p>\n
3.   The proponent should not accumulate or dump any crusher
\n     debris on the steep slopes adjacent to the crusher.\n<\/p>\n
4.   The proprietor shouldn’t obstruct the drainage; prevent
\n     rock debris, oil and grease washed down to the stream
\n     flowing nearby.\n<\/p>\n
WPC No. 11100\/07              10<\/span><\/p>\n
5.   The workers in the crusher should be provided with air
\n     masks to prevent dust, and earplugs to avoid health
\n     impacts due to high noise level.    Wearing of earplugs
\n     and masks should be strictly enforced.\n<\/p>\n
6.   Four sprinklers and four showers are recommended for the
\n     crushing unit.     Their regular operation should be
\n     ensured. Water sprinkling should also be made mandatory
\n     at sites for preventing fugitive air emissions.\n<\/p>\n
7.   The transportation of rock rubbles should be done in
\n     closed trucks. The roads should be surfaced and
\n     maintained periodically by the society.\n<\/p>\n
8.   All machinery should be in good working condition and
\n     ensure all safety measures on site.\n<\/p>\n
9.   The   proprietor should   strictly  implement   all the
\n     conditions and directions stipulated in the consent to
\n     establish the crusher unit issued by the Kerala State
\n     Pollution Control Board.\n<\/p>\n
10. The environmental situation may be reviewed by a
\n     competent agency once the Crusher is in operation, and
\n     corrective measures, if required, should be taken.
\n     The Grama Panchayat may also take necessary steps
\n     to restrict the number of crusher units and
\n     quarries in the area”.\n<\/p>\n
     11. Thus, from the reports made by the above Expert
\nbodies, it is evident that if the unit is allowed to function
\nstrictly in compliance with the conditions specified in the
\nconsent order issued by the KSPCB and the recommendations of
\nthe CESS, there cannot be any threat of air pollution to the
\nproposed Water Treatment Plant.    Therefore, the apprehension<\/p>\n
WPC No. 11100\/07               11<\/span><\/p>\n
expressed by the members of the committee when they passed
\nExt.P10 Resolution and that of respondents 2, 3, 5 and 6 in the
\ncounter affidavits filed in this case, has no basis. In this
\ncontext I should also mention that the reports of the Secretary
\nand the KSPCB specifically refers to the functioning of two
\nstone metal crusher units in closer proximity to the site of
\nthe proposed Water Treatment Plant, the distance of which is
\nnow confirmed to be 710 meters away from the site of the unit.
\nBoth these aspects were conveniently omitted by the committee
\nwhen they deliberated on Ext.P7 renewal application submitted
\nby the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
     12. After the aforesaid materials were filed in this
\ncourt, by order dated 16.08.2007 this court directed the 1st
\nrespondent consider the reports and take a decision in the
\nmatter on or before 5th September 2007, keeping in view the
\nopinion\/grievances of other respondents also. In pursuance to
\nthis order Panchayat considered this matter in their meeting
\nheld on 04.09.2007 when they passed Ext.R1(c) resolution.
\nInstead, since its apprehension of pollution mentioned in
\nExt.P10 has been proven to be baseless, one would have expected
\nthe 1st respondent to have renewed the licence. It is stated in
\nExt.R1(c) that though Ext.P7 application was for using 30 H.P.
\nMotor, during inspection of the unit a motor of 50 H.P. was
\nfound. It is stated that since consent with respect to the 50
\nH.P. motor has not been obtained by the petitioner from the
\nKSPCB, it was resolved to defer a decision on the application
\nuntil consent was obtained.\n<\/p>\n
     13. Petitioner does not dispute the existence of a 50
\nH.P. motor at the unit nor does it dispute that it does not
\nhave consent in respect of the said motor. On the other hand<\/p>\n
WPC No. 11100\/07               12<\/span><\/p>\n
Ext.P3 application of the petitioner is to renew the licence
\nwith the 30 H.P. motor and the petitioner submits that unless
\nand until they obtain consent in respect of the 50 H.P. motor,
\nthey will not utilize the same. However, this aspect has not
\nbeen considered by the Panchayat either in Ext.P10 or in Ext.R1\n<\/p>\n
(c). On the other hand the existence of the 50 H.P. motor has
\nbeen used conveniently, to deny renewal of licence to the
\npetitioner, when the possibility of pollution, the only reason
\nstated in Ext.P10, has now been ruled out by the KSPCB and the
\nCESS. Thus, it is obvious that the 1st respondent Panchayat has
\nbeen inventing reasons to deny licence to the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
     14. With the reports submitted by the KSPCB and the CESS
\nI am satisfied that the reasoning of the Panchayat for denying
\nrenewal of licence for running the petitioner’s unit with a 30
\nH.P. motor is illegal and arbitrary and Ext.P10 resolution
\ndated 23.03.2007 deserves to be set aside and I do so.\n<\/p>\n
III. Point No.3: Now that I have found that Ext.P10 resolution
\nof the 1st respondent is illegal and arbitrary, the next
\nquestion is as to what is the relief that the petitioner is
\nentitled to.    Ordinarily, when the decision of a statutory
\nauthority is set aside by a court, the matter will be remanded
\nto that authority with a direction to reconsider the matter. It
\nis on this basis that the learned counsel for additional
\nrespondents 2 and 3 contended that the Panchayat cannot be
\ndeprived of its statutory right to decide on the application on
\nthe petitioner, on which till now, no final decision has been
\ntaken.\n<\/p>\n
     (ii) I would have certainly remitted matter back to the
\nPanchayat with a direction to take a fresh decision in the<\/p>\n
WPC No. 11100\/07              13<\/span><\/p>\n
matter.    However, in this case, I am satisfied that such a
\ndirection can only do injustice to the petitioner. My reasons
\nfor such a conclusion are that the decision of the Panchayat on
\nExt.P7 renewal application was to obtain report of expert
\nbodies such as KWA, CESS\/ Central Water Commission. This court
\nby  order    dated 17.04.2007  impleaded   KWA  as  additional
\nrespondent No.4 and CESS was impleaded by order dated
\n07.06.2007 in I.A.No.7453 of 2007.    In addition to this the
\nKSPCB also has been impleaded by order dated 18.06.2007 in
\nI.A.No.8059 of 2007.    The CESS has reported in favour of
\nallowing the unit to function, subject to conditions.       The
\nKSPCB’s Report is also one ruling out pollution on compliance
\nwith the conditions of the consent order.      The KWA, though
\napprehends air pollution, suggested study by expert bodies such
\nas KSPCB. In both Exts.P10 and R1(c), Panchayat has no case
\nthat the unit is lacking in any respect.       Thus, with the
\nmaterials that have come on record, I have to conclude that the
\napprehension of air pollution expressed by the Panchayat in
\nExt.P10 has no basis.\n<\/p>\n
     (iii)      While the Panchayat seems to be very concerned
\nabout the threat of pollution from the petitioner’s unit, it
\nhad not shown any such concern while two stone metal crusher
\nunits were functioning in closer proximity to the site of the
\nproposed water treatment plant, despite the fact that these
\nunits did not have any licence. However, Panchayat has made a
\nlast minute attempt to tell this court in its affidavit dated
\n30.09.2007, that action is already taken to stop functioning of
\nthese quarries and no permission has been granted to the
\nfunctioning of the same. Therefore, the attempt is deny licence
\nto the petitioner for reasons which are not genuine or<\/p>\n
WPC No. 11100\/07              14<\/span><\/p>\n
bonafide.\n<\/p>\n
     (iv) My conclusion is fortified by Ext.R1(c) resolution
\nof the Panchayat, passed pursuant to this court’s order dated
\n16.08.2007.    In the light of materials available, one would
\nhave expected the Panchayat to grant the licence.     However,
\nthis resolution, a new reason has been invented by the
\nPanchayat that the petitioner has not obtained consent in
\nrespect of its 50 H.P. motor.     As I have already mentioned
\nExt.P7 application of the petitioner was only for renewing the
\nlicence with a 30 H.P. motor and neither the petitioner nor the
\nPanchayat has a case that the petitioner has made any
\napplication in respect of its 50 H.P. motor.    Petitioner has
\nundertaken that unless and until necessary licenses are
\nobtained, the 50 H.P. motor will not be made use of. Thus, on
\nthe whole, the Panchayat was deliberately refusing to take a
\nfinal decision on Ext.P7 application and the intention is to
\ndeny licence to the petitioner, which has already set up and
\nwas functioning the stone metal crusher units.\n<\/p>\n
     (v) The apex court in Controller and Auditor General of<\/p>\n
India vs. K.S. Jagannathan<\/a> (1986 (2) SCC 679) has held as
\nfollows:\n<\/p>\n
     “Art.226 is designedly couched in a wide language in
\n     order not ot confine the power conferred by it on the
\n     High Courts only to the power to issue prerogative writs
\n     as understood in England.    The High Courts exercising
\n     jurisdiction under Art.226 can issue `directions, order
\n     of writs’ so as to enable the High Courts to reach
\n     injustice wherever it is found and to mould the reliefs
\n     to meet the peculiar and complicated requirements of<\/p>\n
WPC No. 11100\/07              15<\/span><\/p>\n
     this country. The High Courts have the power to issue a
\n     writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or
\n     to pass orders and give necessary directions where the
\n     government or a public authority has failed to exercise
\n     or has wrongly exercised the discretion conferred upon
\n     it by a statute or a rule or a policy decision of the<\/p>\n
     government or has exercised such discretion mala fide or
\n     in irrelevant considerations or by ignoring the relevant
\n     considerations and materials or in such a manner as to
\n     frustrate the object of conferring such discretion or
\n     the policy for implementing which such discretion has
\n     been conferred. In all such cases and in any other fit
\n     and proper case a High Court can compel the performance
\n     in a proper and lawful manner to the discretion
\n     conferred upon the government or a public authority, and
\n     in a proper case, in order to prevent injustice
\n     resulting to the concerned parties, the court may itself
\n     pass an order or give directions which the government or
\n     the public authority should have passed or given had it
\n     properly and lawfully exercised its discretion”.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Following this, a Division Bench of this court in Jancy<\/p>\n
Chandy vs. Jose Puthenkala<\/a> (2006 (4) KLT 116) held that
\nthe jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the
\nConstitution of India cannot be cribbed and cabined by
\ntechnical pleas and that it is meant to reach wherever
\ninjustice is found and to prevent injustice, the writ court
\nshould in appropriate cases pass orders and give directions
\nwhich the concerned statutory authorities could have and should<\/p>\n
WPC No. 11100\/07               16<\/span><\/p>\n
have passed.    By the aforesaid reasoning, the Division Bench
\nupheld the judgment of the Learned Single Judge declaring that
\nthe appellant therein had incurred disqualification in terms of
\nSection 3 of the Local Authorities (Prohibition of Defection)
\nAct 1999 (Kerala).\n<\/p>\n
     15. Following the law laid down by the Apex Court and
\nthis Court, I am satisfied that in the circumstances of this
\ncase, the 1st respondent Panchayat should be directed to renew
\nthe licence of the petitioner pursuant to Ext.P7 application
\nsubmitted by it.    I make it clear that the petitioner shall
\nfunction its stone metal crusher unit strictly in compliance
\nwith the consent order of the KSPCB and the recommendations of
\nthe CESS.      Necessary orders renewing the licence of the
\npetitioner will be passed by the 1st respondent within 2 weeks
\nfrom the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment.\n<\/p>\n
                                              ANTONY DOMINIC
\n                                                   JUDGE
\npr\/jan.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Promoters Charitable Society vs Vellavoor Grama Panchayath on 16 October, 2007 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM WP(C) No. 11100 of 2007(U) 1. PROMOTERS CHARITABLE SOCIETY, … Petitioner Vs 1. VELLAVOOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH, … Respondent For Petitioner :SRI.JOHN JOSEPH VETTIKAD For Respondent :SRI.M.V.BOSE The Hon’ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC Dated […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-137117","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nPromoters Charitable Society vs Vellavoor Grama Panchayath on 16 October, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/promoters-charitable-society-vs-vellavoor-grama-panchayath-on-16-october-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Promoters Charitable Society vs Vellavoor Grama Panchayath on 16 October, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/promoters-charitable-society-vs-vellavoor-grama-panchayath-on-16-october-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2007-10-15T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-09-02T01:26:28+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"21 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/promoters-charitable-society-vs-vellavoor-grama-panchayath-on-16-october-2007#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/promoters-charitable-society-vs-vellavoor-grama-panchayath-on-16-october-2007\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Promoters Charitable Society vs Vellavoor Grama Panchayath on 16 October, 2007\",\"datePublished\":\"2007-10-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-09-02T01:26:28+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/promoters-charitable-society-vs-vellavoor-grama-panchayath-on-16-october-2007\"},\"wordCount\":4156,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Kerala High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/promoters-charitable-society-vs-vellavoor-grama-panchayath-on-16-october-2007#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/promoters-charitable-society-vs-vellavoor-grama-panchayath-on-16-october-2007\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/promoters-charitable-society-vs-vellavoor-grama-panchayath-on-16-october-2007\",\"name\":\"Promoters Charitable Society vs Vellavoor Grama Panchayath on 16 October, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2007-10-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-09-02T01:26:28+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/promoters-charitable-society-vs-vellavoor-grama-panchayath-on-16-october-2007#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/promoters-charitable-society-vs-vellavoor-grama-panchayath-on-16-october-2007\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/promoters-charitable-society-vs-vellavoor-grama-panchayath-on-16-october-2007#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Promoters Charitable Society vs Vellavoor Grama Panchayath on 16 October, 2007\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Promoters Charitable Society vs Vellavoor Grama Panchayath on 16 October, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/promoters-charitable-society-vs-vellavoor-grama-panchayath-on-16-october-2007","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Promoters Charitable Society vs Vellavoor Grama Panchayath on 16 October, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/promoters-charitable-society-vs-vellavoor-grama-panchayath-on-16-october-2007","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2007-10-15T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-09-02T01:26:28+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"21 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/promoters-charitable-society-vs-vellavoor-grama-panchayath-on-16-october-2007#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/promoters-charitable-society-vs-vellavoor-grama-panchayath-on-16-october-2007"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Promoters Charitable Society vs Vellavoor Grama Panchayath on 16 October, 2007","datePublished":"2007-10-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-09-02T01:26:28+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/promoters-charitable-society-vs-vellavoor-grama-panchayath-on-16-october-2007"},"wordCount":4156,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Kerala High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/promoters-charitable-society-vs-vellavoor-grama-panchayath-on-16-october-2007#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/promoters-charitable-society-vs-vellavoor-grama-panchayath-on-16-october-2007","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/promoters-charitable-society-vs-vellavoor-grama-panchayath-on-16-october-2007","name":"Promoters Charitable Society vs Vellavoor Grama Panchayath on 16 October, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2007-10-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-09-02T01:26:28+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/promoters-charitable-society-vs-vellavoor-grama-panchayath-on-16-october-2007#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/promoters-charitable-society-vs-vellavoor-grama-panchayath-on-16-october-2007"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/promoters-charitable-society-vs-vellavoor-grama-panchayath-on-16-october-2007#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Promoters Charitable Society vs Vellavoor Grama Panchayath on 16 October, 2007"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/137117","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=137117"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/137117\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=137117"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=137117"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=137117"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}