{"id":38665,"date":"2007-04-10T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-04-09T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pepsico-india-holdings-pvt-ltd-vs-state-of-kerala-on-10-april-2007"},"modified":"2015-03-03T08:24:33","modified_gmt":"2015-03-03T02:54:33","slug":"pepsico-india-holdings-pvt-ltd-vs-state-of-kerala-on-10-april-2007","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pepsico-india-holdings-pvt-ltd-vs-state-of-kerala-on-10-april-2007","title":{"rendered":"Pepsico India Holdings Pvt. Ltd vs State Of Kerala on 10 April, 2007"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Pepsico India Holdings Pvt. Ltd vs State Of Kerala on 10 April, 2007<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nWP(C) No. 27334 of 2003(D)\n\n\n1. PEPSICO INDIA HOLDINGS PVT. LTD.,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. STATE OF KERALA,\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n2. PUDUSSERY GRAMA PANCHAYAT(SPECIAL GRADE)\n\n3. THE KERALA INDUSTRIAL SINGLE WINDOW\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.ANTONY DOMINIC\n\n                For Respondent  :GOVERNMENT PLEADER\n\nThe Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice MR.K.S.RADHAKRISHNAN\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice M.N.KRISHNAN\n\n Dated :10\/04\/2007\n\n O R D E R\nWPC 27334\/03 and 27736\/04                      1\n\n\n\n\n               K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, Ag. C.J. & M.N. KRISHNAN, J.\n\n           ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n                       W.P.C. Nos.  27334  of 2003 and 27736 of 2004\n\n               ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n                               Dated:       10th  April 2007\n\n\n                                       JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
Radhakrishnan, Ag. C. J.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
       The cardinal question  to be considered  in these  cases is whether the<\/p>\n
second  respondent   Panchayat  has  got jurisdiction  either  to   issue  or cancel<\/p>\n
the licence granted to the petitioner for  setting up the factory  at Kanjikode<\/p>\n
situated   in   an   industrial   area     notified   as   Integrated   Industrial   Township,<\/p>\n
Palghat     by   the   Government   of   Kerala     vide   SRO   No   730\/01   issued   by<\/p>\n
notification G.O. 672\/2001\/AD dated 24.7.2001   in exercise of the powers<\/p>\n
conferred by clause (f) of Sections 2 and 5 of the Kerala Industrial   Single<\/p>\n
Window Clearance Boards and Industrial Township Area Development Act,<\/p>\n
1999 (Act 5 of 2000), in short Development Act.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
       2.   Petitioner   is   a   private   limited   Company   registered   under   the<\/p>\n
Companies   Act       engaged   in   the   manufacture,   bottling   and   sale   of   soft<\/p>\n
drinks like Pepsi, Mirinda, Seven Up etc.,   the factory of which  is set up in<\/p>\n
the   industrial   area,   Kanjikode.       The   petitioner   company   had   made   an<\/p>\n
application for the issue of licence for setting up of a factory in an industrial<\/p>\n
WPC 27334\/03 and 27736\/04                        2<\/span><\/p>\n
area through the Kerala State Industrial Development Corporation Limited<\/p>\n
(K.S.I.D.C) to the Single Window Clearance State Board constituted under<\/p>\n
the   Kerala   Industrial   Single   Window   Clearance   Boards   and   Industrial<\/p>\n
Township Area Development Act, 1999 (in short “the Development Act”).<\/p>\n
The State Board after considering the application preferred by the petitioner<\/p>\n
directed   the  second    respondent   to  grant   necessary permission  \/   industrial<\/p>\n
license   to   the   petitioner   for   putting   up   the   factory   in   the   industrial   area.<\/p>\n
The   second   respondent   on   receiving   the   recommendation   from   the   State<\/p>\n
Board   issued a license in favour of M\/s ABMC for a period of five years<\/p>\n
from 2000-2001 to 2004-2005 evidenced by Ext. P4.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
        3.   Petitioner   has   been   carrying   on   the   manufacturing   process<\/p>\n
complying with all the statutory  requirements and at no point of time they<\/p>\n
have violated any of the conditions in Ext P4.   Due to some public agitation<\/p>\n
against the functioning of the factory the petitioner had to move  this court<\/p>\n
for police protection and protection was granted  by this court  as per order<\/p>\n
dated   20.01.2003.      The  second  respondent   later     issued   a    notice  No  A4<\/p>\n
262\/2000 to show  cause why the licence should not be cancelled due to the<\/p>\n
allegation   of  over   exploitation   of   ground   water  by  the   petitioners  and   the<\/p>\n
consequent  shortage  of   drinking   water.                Ext.   P5  is   the  notice   dated<\/p>\n
20.05.2003 served on the petitioners.   Petitioner submitted a reply denying<\/p>\n
WPC 27334\/03 and 27736\/04                      3<\/span><\/p>\n
the   allegation   and   also   submitted   that     the   Panchayat   has   no   jurisdiction<\/p>\n
either to issue or cancel licence issued to the petitioner since the power to<\/p>\n
grant licence or to cancel the licence  vests with the Board constituted under<\/p>\n
the   Development   Act,   1999.       Petitioner   also   referred   to   the   notification,<\/p>\n
G.O. No 672\/2001\/AD dated 24.7.2001 notifying the area as an Integrated<\/p>\n
Industrial Township, Palghat  and the petitioner’s factory is  situated in that<\/p>\n
area.     Further   it   was   also   stated   that   the   Government   have   constituted   a<\/p>\n
Single Window Clearance Board for the said area  known as “the Integrated<\/p>\n
Industrial Township Single Window Clearance Board”, Palghat and powers<\/p>\n
are vested in that Board under  the provisions of the  Development Act.<\/p>\n
       4. Petitioner was however served with  Order No A4-353\/2003 dated<\/p>\n
22.08.2003 by the Panchayat cancelling the license.  Aggrieved by the same<\/p>\n
petitioner   has   approached   this   court     by   filing   W.P.C.   No   27334   of   2003<\/p>\n
seeking   a   writ   of   certiorari   to   quash   Ext.P10   order   passed   by   the   second<\/p>\n
respondent  Panchayat and also for a direction  to the  second  respondent  to<\/p>\n
refrain from imposing any condition\/restriction to the license issued to the<\/p>\n
petitioner   without the directions  from the Single Window Clearance State<\/p>\n
Board  constituted  under  the  Development  Act, 1999.      Petitioner  has  also<\/p>\n
filed I.A. No 3089 of 2007 seeking a declaration that the provisions of the<\/p>\n
Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 are not applicable to the Kanjikode unit of<\/p>\n
WPC 27334\/03 and 27736\/04                       4<\/span><\/p>\n
the petitioner  and that the second  respondent Panchayat does not have any<\/p>\n
administrative   jurisdiction   over   the   affairs   of   the   Kanjikode   unit   of   the<\/p>\n
petitioner.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
          5. Panchayat had accorded sanction to the petitioner company, vide<\/p>\n
order   No   242\/2000   dated   5.5.2000   for   the   construction   of   building   and<\/p>\n
installation of 2000 HP electric motor on the basis of application submitted<\/p>\n
by the company on 12.03.2000.  The Company  accordingly constructed the<\/p>\n
building   for   its   factory   and   installed   2000   HP   electric   motor   at   the   site.<\/p>\n
While   so,   the   petitioner   unit   situated   at   Kanjikode   was   notified   as   an<\/p>\n
industrial   area     under   the   Integrated   Industrial   Township,   Palghat   with<\/p>\n
effect from 24.07.2001 by notification dated 24.07.2001.  Since the area was<\/p>\n
declared   as   an  industrial  area,  the   provisions   of  the  Kerala   Panchayat  Raj<\/p>\n
Act cease to have application to the industrial area in question by virtue of<\/p>\n
sub-section (2) of Section 1 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act 1994 though at<\/p>\n
the   time   when   the   factory   was   set   up   the   area   was   not   declared   as   an<\/p>\n
industrial   area.       Petitioner   submits     that   with   effect   from   24.07.2001   the<\/p>\n
second   respondent   Panchayat   ceased   to   have   any   jurisdiction   over   the<\/p>\n
Kanjikode   unit   of   the   petitioner   company   by   virtue   of   the     express<\/p>\n
provisions   of   Section   1   (2)   of   the   Kerala   Panchayat   Raj   Act,   1994.<\/p>\n
Petitioner   was   however   served   with   Ext.   P4   notice   dated   20.04.2004   to<\/p>\n
WPC 27334\/03 and 27736\/04                       5<\/span><\/p>\n
show cause   why steps shall   not be taken to cancel Ext. P1 order granting<\/p>\n
permission to the petitioner to  install 2000 HP electric motor on the ground<\/p>\n
that   the   petitioner   has   been     indiscriminately   extracting   huge   quantity   of<\/p>\n
ground water thereby drying up a number of wells in and near the locality<\/p>\n
causing scarcity of drinking water in the Panchayat area.    Petitioner replied<\/p>\n
to the said notice pointing out that the question as to whether Panchayat has<\/p>\n
got   jurisdiction   to   proceed   against   the   petitioner   is   already   pending<\/p>\n
consideration   before   this   court   in   W.P.C.   No   27334   of   2003.     Objection<\/p>\n
raised   by   the   petitioner   was     however   repelled   and   the   Panchayat   passed<\/p>\n
Ext.  P6  order  dated 15.09.2004  in  exercise  of the  powers  conferred  under<\/p>\n
Section 182 (iii) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 cancelling the order<\/p>\n
according   sanction   for   the   installation   of   2000   HP   electric   motor   and<\/p>\n
direction was given to the Plant Engineer to dismantle the same.  Aggrieved<\/p>\n
by the said order petitioner has filed W.P.C. No   27736 of 2004 seeking a<\/p>\n
writ of certiorari to quash Ext. P6 and also for other consequential reliefs.<\/p>\n
        6.  Panchayat  has  filed  a  detailed   counter   affidavit  in   both  the   cases<\/p>\n
maintaining   the   stand   that   it   has   got   jurisdiction   to   to   cancel   the   license<\/p>\n
already granted and to revoke the sanction to install 2000 HP electric motor.<\/p>\n
Panchayat  has maintained the stand that the Development Act, 1999 would<\/p>\n
not  take away the rights  of the Panchayat under the Kerala Panchayat Raj<\/p>\n
WPC 27334\/03 and 27736\/04                        6<\/span><\/p>\n
Act  in the matter of issuance  or cancellation  of license.         Further it was<\/p>\n
pointed   out   that   Section   166   of   the   Kerala   Panchayat   Raj   Act   provides<\/p>\n
authority  for  the    Panchayat  for  maintenance  of  traditional  drinking  water<\/p>\n
sources in the Panchayat   as one of its mandatory duties to safeguard public<\/p>\n
interest.   It   is   stated   that   the   Panchayat   Raj   Act   was   enacted   by   the   State<\/p>\n
Legislature     consequent   on   the   Constitution   (Seventy   third   Amendment)<\/p>\n
Act,1992  for  securing  a  greater measure  of  participation  of  the  people    in<\/p>\n
planned   development   and     under   Article   243-G  the   Legislature   of   a   State<\/p>\n
may, by law, endow the Panchayats with such powers and authority as may<\/p>\n
be necessary to enable them to function as institutions  of self-government.<\/p>\n
Further it is  also  stated  that    under Section 243C of the Kerala  Panchayat<\/p>\n
Raj   Act,   the   Panchayat   is   vested   with   the   powers   to   implement     and<\/p>\n
maintain     water   supply   and   sewage   schemes   within   the   Panchayat   area.<\/p>\n
Panchayat  pointed   out  that  one    of  the  important  functions   required  to  be<\/p>\n
discharged   by   the   Grama   Panchayats     under   the   provisions   of   the<\/p>\n
Constitution of India read along with the Panchayat Raj Act is to ensure and<\/p>\n
maintain supply of pure drinking water to the people in the Panchayat area.<\/p>\n
        7. The   third respondent, the Kerala State Single Window Clearance<\/p>\n
Board, has  filed a detailed counter affidavit.       It is  stated therein  that the<\/p>\n
petitioner’s   factory     is   established   within   the   industrial   area     of   the<\/p>\n
WPC 27334\/03 and 27736\/04                     7<\/span><\/p>\n
Integrated     Industrial   Township,   Palakkad   in   exercise   of   the   powers<\/p>\n
conferred by clause (f) of Section 2 and of Section 5 of the Single Window<\/p>\n
Clearance Act.    Consequently provisions of the  Kerala Panchayat Raj Act<\/p>\n
are not applicable to the industrial area in question since it falls outside the<\/p>\n
purview  of Section    1(2)  of the  Kerala  Panchayat Raj Act.   The  power  to<\/p>\n
grant  license  is exclusively conferred  on  the State Board    by virtue of the<\/p>\n
Development Act, 1999    and the authorities are bound  to act according  to<\/p>\n
the Board’s function under the Development Act, 1999.<\/p>\n
       8. We heard Senior Counsel Sri A.L.Somayaji for the petitioners, Sri<\/p>\n
Kallada Sukumaran for the Panchayat, Senior Government Pleader Sri T.B.<\/p>\n
Hood for the State and Senior Counsel Sri M. Pathros Matthai for the third<\/p>\n
respondent.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
       9.   Senior   Counsel   appearing   for   the   petitioners   has   raised   various<\/p>\n
contentions   regarding   the   matters   raised   in   the   writ   petitions     and<\/p>\n
highlighted   the   various   functions     of   the   authority     functioning   under   the<\/p>\n
Development Act.  Counsel also referred to the decision of the apex court in<\/p>\n
Solapur    MIDC  Industries  Association  v.  State  of Maharashtra  and  others<\/a><\/p>\n
(1996) 9 SCC 621).   Counsel appearing for the Panchayat reminded  us of<\/p>\n
the duties and responsibilities of the Panchayat under the Panchayat Raj Act<\/p>\n
and stated that the  reasons stated for cancellation of license   do not justify<\/p>\n
WPC 27334\/03 and 27736\/04                        8<\/span><\/p>\n
the   fact   that   there   has   been   over   exploitation   of   ground   water   by   the<\/p>\n
petitioner   company.             In   support   of   this   contention   counsel   also   made<\/p>\n
reference   to   the   decision   of   this   court   in    Manjapra   Grama   Panchayat   v.<\/p>\n
State of Kerala<\/a> (1996 (2) KLT 719) and Action Council v. Benny Abraham<\/a><\/p>\n
(2001 (2) KLT 690).\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
        10.   Article   243-G   states   that   subject   to   the   provisions   of   the<\/p>\n
Constitution, the Legislature of a State may, by law, endow the Panchayats<\/p>\n
with   such   powers   and   authority   as   may   be   necessary     to   enable   them   to<\/p>\n
function   as   institutions   of   self-government   and   such   law   may   contain<\/p>\n
provisions   for   the   devolution   of   powers   and   responsibilities   upon<\/p>\n
Panchayats   at   the   appropriate   level,   subject   to   such   conditions   as   may  be<\/p>\n
specified   therein   with   respect   to   the   preparation     of   plans     for   economic<\/p>\n
development   and   social   justice,   the   implementation   of   schemes   for<\/p>\n
economic   development   and   social   justice   as   may   be   entrusted   to   them<\/p>\n
including those in relation  to the  matters listed in the Eleventh   Schedule.<\/p>\n
Eleventh   Schedule   contains   29   entries.       Entry   3   relates   to   minor<\/p>\n
irrigation,water management     and watershed  development, drinking water<\/p>\n
and   so   on.       By   virtue   of       Article     243G   the   State     enacted   the   Kerala<\/p>\n
Panchayat Raj Act, 1994.  The Legislature in its wisdom excluded the areas<\/p>\n
which   are   within   the   limits   of   the   Cantonments,   Nagar   Panchayats,<\/p>\n
WPC 27334\/03 and 27736\/04                       9<\/span><\/p>\n
Municipal Councils, Municipal Corporation and the Industrial areas of the<\/p>\n
State.   We may extract the exclusion provision for easy reference.<\/p>\n
               (1) This Act may be called the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994<\/p>\n
               (2)   It   extends   to   the   whole   of   the   State   of   Kerala  except   the<\/p>\n
areas   which   are   within   the   limits   of   the   Cantonments,   Nagar   Panchayats,<\/p>\n
Municipal Councils, Municipal Corporations and the Industrial areas of the<\/p>\n
State.         Section   4   of   the   Act   states   that   the   Government   shall,   by<\/p>\n
notification in the gazette, constitute with effect from such date as  specified<\/p>\n
in   the   notification,   a   “municipal   council”   for   a   smaller   urban   area   and   a<\/p>\n
Municipal Corporation for a larger urban area.  Proviso to Section 1 of the<\/p>\n
Kerala Panchayat Raj Act states that  it extends to the whole of the State of<\/p>\n
Kerala   except   the   areas   which   are   within   the   limits   of   the   Cantonments,<\/p>\n
Nagar   Panchayats,   Municipal   Councils,   Municipal   Corporations   and   the<\/p>\n
industrial  areas  of the  State.           The  term “industrial    area”  has  not  been<\/p>\n
defined  in the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act and   has been  excluded from the<\/p>\n
purview of the Panchayat Raj Act.  “Industrial area” has been defined in the<\/p>\n
Development Act (Act  5 of 2000).   The Development  Act  was enacted  to<\/p>\n
provide special provision for speedy issue of various licence clearances and<\/p>\n
certificates required for setting up of industrial undertakings in the State of<\/p>\n
Kerala  and for the Constitution of Industrial Township Area Development<\/p>\n
WPC 27334\/03 and 27736\/04                        10<\/span><\/p>\n
Authorities and for matter connected therewith.     Preamble of the Act says<\/p>\n
that   it   is   necessary   to   make   special   provision     to   promote   and   assist   the<\/p>\n
orderly establishment and rapid growth and development of industries in the<\/p>\n
State.         For   that   purpose   it   is   necessary   to   establish   Single   Window<\/p>\n
Clearance Boards at the State District and Industrial area level.     Preamble<\/p>\n
of   the   Act   also   refers   to   clause   (1)   of   Article   243   Q   of   the   Constitution.<\/p>\n
Statement of   objects   and reasons states  that   the Government have given<\/p>\n
emphasis to a cluster based approach for the industrial growth of the State<\/p>\n
and   have   been   taking   a   series   of   steps   for   establishing   both   general   and<\/p>\n
sector   specific   Parks   in   the   State   with   all   necessary   infrastructure.     It   is<\/p>\n
stated   that   it   is   hence     vital   that   empowered   Single   Window   Clearance<\/p>\n
Boards be set up in all such industrial areas so that the entrepreneurs can get<\/p>\n
a   comprehensive   package   of   assistance   to     set   up   units   in   the   identified<\/p>\n
industrial areas.    “Industrial area” has  been defined  in Section  2 (f) of the<\/p>\n
Development Act, which reads as follows:\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
        “Industrial  Area means any area in the State declared to be an<\/p>\n
        industrial area by the Government by notification in the Gazette<\/p>\n
        from time to time and includes industrial estates, development<\/p>\n
        areas, development plots, mini industrial estates, industrial<\/p>\n
        parks and growth centres.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n<\/blockquote>\n
In   exercise   of   the   powers   conferred   by   clause   (f)   of   sub-section   (2)   of<\/p>\n
WPC 27334\/03 and 27736\/04                       11<\/span><\/p>\n
Section 5 of the Development  Act, the Government declared the Integrated<\/p>\n
Industrial     Township,   Palakkad   to   be   an   industrial   area   of   the   State   and<\/p>\n
constituted a Single Window Clearance Board for the said area to be known<\/p>\n
as   “Integrated   Industrial   Township  Single   Window   Clearance  Board.”     In<\/p>\n
the   counter   affidavit   filed   by   the   Executive   Officer   of   the   Kerala   State<\/p>\n
Single  Window Clearance  Board    constituted  under the Development  Act,<\/p>\n
1999   it   has   been     specifically   stated   that   the   petitioner’s   factory   is<\/p>\n
established within the industrial area of the Integrated Industrial  Township,<\/p>\n
Palakkad   to   be   an   industrial   area   of   the   State   and   has   also   constituted   a<\/p>\n
Single   Window   Clearance   Board   for   the   said   area   to   be   known   as   the<\/p>\n
Integrated Industrial Township Single Clearance Board, Palakkad   in view<\/p>\n
of   the   Government   notification   dated   24.07.2001.             We   may   in   this<\/p>\n
connection refer to Section 3 of the Act, which is extracted below for easy<\/p>\n
reference.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                “3. State Board – (1) For the purpose of speedy issue of various<\/p>\n
        licences, clearances, certificates required under various State<\/p>\n
        enactments  for setting up of industrial undertakings in the State, the<\/p>\n
        Government may, by notification,constitute Single Window<\/p>\n
        Clearance Board for the State to be called the Kerala State Single<\/p>\n
        Window Clearance Board.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\nWPC 27334\/03 and 27736\/04                     12<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
Government   therefore   by   notification   dated   24.07.2001   constituted<\/p>\n
integrated industrial township.     It is that authority which has to deal with<\/p>\n
the   various   licence   clearances   or     certificates   required   under   the   several<\/p>\n
State   enactments   for   setting   up   small   scale   or   large   scale   industrial<\/p>\n
undertakings   or   industrial   undertakings   within   the   Integrated   Industrial<\/p>\n
Township,   Palakkad.     Integrated   Industrial   Township   Single   Window<\/p>\n
Clearance   Board   is   a   body   corporate   by   name   of   the   Industrial   Area   for<\/p>\n
which   it   is   constituted   having   perpetual   succession   and   a   common   seal.<\/p>\n
Every   Industrial   Area   Single   Window   Clearance   Board   shall   consist   of<\/p>\n
Principal  Secretary to Government, Industries  Department or his  nominee,<\/p>\n
Collector   of   the   district,   Chief   Executive   of   the   Agency   owning   or<\/p>\n
managing the industrial area, District Officer of the State Pollution Control<\/p>\n
Board, District Officer of the Town Planning Department, District Medical<\/p>\n
Officer, District Officer, Factories and Boilers Inspectorate, Divisional Fire<\/p>\n
Force Officer, Divisional Forest Officer  and so on.   Representatives of the<\/p>\n
local Panchayat are absent in the  composition  evidently because industrial<\/p>\n
area   has   been  taken   out   of   the   purview   of  the   Kerala   Panchayat   Raj   Act,<\/p>\n
1994.   We  may also refer to Section 6 of the Development Act which states<\/p>\n
that   notwithstanding   anything   contained   in   any   law   for   the   time   being   in<\/p>\n
force   all   industrial   undertakings   being   established   or   proposed   to   be<\/p>\n
WPC 27334\/03 and 27736\/04                     13<\/span><\/p>\n
established   in   industrial   area   shall   be   exempted   from   obtaining     permits<\/p>\n
from   Municipalities   or   Grama   Panchayats   Town   Planning   Department   or<\/p>\n
Development   Authorities   for   construction   of   buildings   for   starting   an<\/p>\n
industrial undertaking.   Section 7 dealing with  the powers and functions of<\/p>\n
Industrial Area Boards  states as follows:\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
              Notwithstanding   anything   contained   in   any   law   for   the   time<\/p>\n
       being   in   force,   every   person   intending   to   establish   an   industrial<\/p>\n
       undertaking   or   a   small   scale   industrial   undertaking   in   any   of   the<\/p>\n
       notified industrial areas shall submit the application in the prescribed<\/p>\n
       form to the designated authority of that industrial area for clearances<\/p>\n
       or   licenses   or   certificates   required   under   various   State   enactments<\/p>\n
       together with the fee if any to be paid, under the respective enactment.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
                      (2)  The  Industrial  Area Board  shall  after  complying   the<\/p>\n
       procedure   prescribed   in   this   behalf   and   within   thirty   days   from   the<\/p>\n
       date of receipt of the application take a decision as –<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
                      (a) to recommend to the authority concerned, the issue of<\/p>\n
       the   licence   or   permission   applied   for   without   any   modifications   or<\/p>\n
       with such modifications as it thinks to fit to make; or<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
                      (b)   to   refuse   clearance   if   it   is   of   the   opinion   that   the<\/p>\n
       proposed construction, establishment or installation is objectionable.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
              (3)  The  decision  taken  by  the   Industrial  Areas  Board   shall   be<\/p>\n
       communicated   to   the   applicant   and   the   authority   concerned   by   the<\/p>\n
       designated authority of the Industrial Area Board.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
We   may   in   this   connection   refer   to   the   definition   of   “District   Board”<\/p>\n
contained in Section 2 (c) of the Development Act.  “District Board” means<\/p>\n
the District Single Window Clearance Board constituted under sub-section<\/p>\n
WPC 27334\/03 and 27736\/04                     14<\/span><\/p>\n
(1)   of   Section   4  of   the  Act.     District  Boards  have   been   constituted   under<\/p>\n
various   other   State   enactments.     Every   District   Board   shall   consist   of<\/p>\n
Collector of the District, General Manager, District Industries Centre of the<\/p>\n
District   concerned,  President   of   the   Grama   Panchayat   concerned  or<\/p>\n
Chairperson   of   the   Municipality   concerned   in   cases   where   license   is<\/p>\n
required   from   the   local   bodies,   District   Officer   of   the   State   Pollution<\/p>\n
Control Board and so on.     The  Integrated Industrial Township, Palakkad<\/p>\n
has been declared as an industrial area  in exercise of the powers conferred<\/p>\n
by Section 5, which falls outside the purview of the Kerala Panchayat Raj<\/p>\n
Act, 1994. Consequently Panchayat cannot exercise any power to cancel the<\/p>\n
licence   issued   to   the   petitioner’s   factory,   a   power   which   is   exclusively<\/p>\n
vested  on  the Board functioning under the Development Act.<\/p>\n
         11. Section  10 of the Development Act authorises  the  State  Board,<\/p>\n
District Board or the Industrial Area  Board to issue the clearances, licenses<\/p>\n
or  certificates   applied   for   in   accordance   with   the  recommendations   of  the<\/p>\n
State Board, District Board or Industrial Area Board.   Panchayat has no say<\/p>\n
in   the   matter   of   issuing   licence.       Panchayat   has   passed   a   resolution   on<\/p>\n
15.5.2003   to   cancel   the   licence   to   the   petitioner   company   but   it   may   be<\/p>\n
noted     that the industrial establishments  put up in the new industrial area<\/p>\n
are   governed   by  the   Development   Act.         Shortage     in   the   availability   of<\/p>\n
WPC 27334\/03 and 27736\/04                    15<\/span><\/p>\n
drinking water is a perennial problem, says the Panchayat.   Panchayat can<\/p>\n
always   bring   this   to   the   notice   of   the   authorities   constituted   under   the<\/p>\n
Development   Act   and   that     authority   can   also   examine   whether   the<\/p>\n
industrial   units   are   consuming   excess   water   depleting   water   sources<\/p>\n
affecting the people.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
       12.   Panchayat   it   may  be   noted     has   approached   this   court   by   filing<\/p>\n
W.P.C. No 8897 of 2004 challenging the constitutional validity of Section 1<\/p>\n
(2) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994  to the extent it excluded  Nagar<\/p>\n
Panchayats,   Municipal   Counsel   etc.   and   the   petitioner   company   got<\/p>\n
impleaded   as additional seventh respondent in the writ petition which was<\/p>\n
subsequently dismissed as withdrawn.     Reference   in this connection may<\/p>\n
be made   to the decision  of the apex court in   Sali  Gram Panchayat’s case<\/p>\n
supra.  That was a case where Grama Panchayat impugned the notifications<\/p>\n
as well as the resolutions issued by the State Government under Section 2<\/p>\n
(g) of the Gujarat Industrial Development Act,1962 declaring certain lands<\/p>\n
of Village   Saij as Kalol Industrial Area.     Section 16   gives power to the<\/p>\n
Government to issue notification by which it can declare that an industrial<\/p>\n
area as defined in the Gujarat Industrial Development Act, 1962 would also<\/p>\n
be   a   deemed   notified   area   under   the   Gujarat   Municipalities   Act,   1963.<\/p>\n
With   effect   from       1.6.1993,   the   Constitution   73rd  and   74th  Amendments<\/p>\n
WPC 27334\/03 and 27736\/04                      16<\/span><\/p>\n
came into effect as a result of which Parts IX and IX-A were introduced in<\/p>\n
the Constitution. Gujarat Municipalities Act was amended on 20.8.1993 in<\/p>\n
view of the insertion of Parts IX and  IX-A in the Constitution, as a result of<\/p>\n
which   an   industrial   area   under   the   Gujarat   Industrial   Development   Act,<\/p>\n
which is   notified under Section 16 of the Gujarat Industrial Development<\/p>\n
Act     would   become   a   notified   area   under   the   new   Section   264-A   of   the<\/p>\n
Gujarat   Municipalities   Act   and   would   mean   an   industrial   township   area<\/p>\n
under   the   proviso   to   clause   (1)   of   Article   243-Q     of   the   Constitution   of<\/p>\n
India.         Grama   Panchayat   contended   that   the   notification   issued     under<\/p>\n
Section 16 of the Act is contrary to Parts IX and IX-A of the Constitution<\/p>\n
brought into force by the 73rd  and 74th  Amendments.     The apex court held<\/p>\n
that once the area is deemed notified area under the Gujarat Municipalities<\/p>\n
Act,1964  it is  equated  with an  industrial township  under  Part IX-A of the<\/p>\n
Constitution   where   municipal   services   may   be   provided   by   industries.<\/p>\n
Hence the court took the view that there is no violation of any constitutional<\/p>\n
provisions  of the  Scheme .     Facts    of  the above  mentioned  case  may not<\/p>\n
directly   apply   to   the   instant   case   but   the   principle  laid   down   by  the   apex<\/p>\n
court  would support the  plea of such exclusion  as  has  been done    in  sub-<\/p>\n
section (2) of Section 1 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act.<\/p>\n
        13. Panchayat in this case has raised a contention that excessive use<\/p>\n
WPC 27334\/03 and 27736\/04                      17<\/span><\/p>\n
of groundwater by the petitioner is creating acute water shortage in the area<\/p>\n
and under such  circumstances  the Panchayat has  taken  steps  to cancel the<\/p>\n
licence.    Panchayat, in our view,  has no jurisdiction in the matter of issue<\/p>\n
or  renewal  of  licence  to   the   petitioner’s  factory  since  the   legislature   in  its<\/p>\n
wisdom   has   excluded   the   area   in   question   from   the   purview   of   the<\/p>\n
Panchayat   Raj   Act   in   view   of   sub-section   (2)   of   Section   1   of   the   Kerala<\/p>\n
Panchayat   Raj   Act.    Courts   cannot   be   blamed   for   this   predicament,   the<\/p>\n
legislature   and   the   executive   in   their  wisdom  excluded  the   industrial   area<\/p>\n
from the purview of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, with the result that the<\/p>\n
Panchayat cannot take steps under the Panchayat Raj Act.<\/p>\n
        14. We may however point out that  the   apprehension voiced by the<\/p>\n
Panchayat   cannot   be   lost   sight   of     and   calls   for       the   attention   of   the<\/p>\n
authorities   functioning   under   the   Kerala   Ground   Water   (Control   and<\/p>\n
Regulation)   Act,   2000   as   well   as   the   Board   constituted   under   the<\/p>\n
Development Act.     Ground Water (Control  and Regulation) Act has been<\/p>\n
enacted   to   provide   for   the   conservation   of   ground   water   and   for   the<\/p>\n
regulation and control of its extraction and use in the State of Kerala.  Right<\/p>\n
to live enshrined  under Article 21 of the Constitution  implies right to food,<\/p>\n
water etc.  Providing  drinking water is the concern of the Panchayat as well<\/p>\n
as   the   State.   Since   they   have   expressed   their   concern     of   depletion   of<\/p>\n
WPC 27334\/03 and 27736\/04                    18<\/span><\/p>\n
groundwater the authorities functioning under the Ground Water Act  have a<\/p>\n
duty to  examine  whether petitioner is using excessive groundwater so as to<\/p>\n
deplete     the   water   source   affecting     the   people   who   are   living   in   the<\/p>\n
Panchayat area.   Panchayat as well as the authorities functioning under the<\/p>\n
Groundwater Act are equally concerned with the welfare of the people who<\/p>\n
are residing in the Panchayat area, a matter which can always be taken up by<\/p>\n
the Panchayat   before   the authorities functioning under the Ground Water<\/p>\n
Act.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
         14. We have already found that the second respondent Panchayat has<\/p>\n
no jurisdiction  under the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act in the matter of issue or<\/p>\n
cancellation of licence.   Petitioner’s industry is situated in an industrial area<\/p>\n
as notified by the Government in the notification dated 24.07.2001.  In such<\/p>\n
circumstances,   we   are   inclined   to   allow   both   the   writ   petitions   declaring<\/p>\n
Ext. P10 in W.P.C. No 27334 of 2003 and Ext. P6 in W.P.C. No 27736 of<\/p>\n
2004 are issued without jurisdiction and  they are accordingly quashed.<\/p>\n
                                                              Sd\/-\n<\/p>\n
                                                     K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN<\/p>\n
                                                     Ag. Chief Justice<\/p>\n
                                                              Sd\/-<\/p>\n
\n\n                                                     M.N. KRISHNAN\n\n10\/04\/2007                                           Judge\n\nen\/\n\n\nWPC 27334\/03 and 27736\/04                      19<\/span>\n\n\n\n\nW.P.C. No 27334 of 2003\n\n\nAPPENDIX\n\n\nPetitioner's exhibits;:\n\n\n<\/pre>\n
Ext.P1  – True  copy of the  application  filed   by the  petitioner  to the  Single<\/p>\n
Window Clearance Board dated Nil.\n<\/p>\n
Ext.P2   –     True   copy   of   the   letter   dated   30.10.2000   issued   by   the   fourth<\/p>\n
respondent.\n<\/p>\n
Ext.P3 – True copy of the letter dated 2.11.2000 No 48498\/M2\/2000\/LSGD<\/p>\n
by the first respondent.\n<\/p>\n
Ext.P4 – True copy of the licence dated 22.11.2000 issued to the petitioner<\/p>\n
by the second respondent Panchayat pursuant to the directions of the Board<\/p>\n
and valid for a period of five years from 2000-01 to 2004-05.<\/p>\n
Ext.P5 – True copy of the show cause notice dated 20.05.2003 issued by the<\/p>\n
second respondent.\n<\/p>\n
Ext.P6   –   True   copy   of   the   letter   dated   29.05.2003   of   the   convenor   of   the<\/p>\n
Single Window Clearance Board to the Secretary of the second respondent<\/p>\n
Panchayat.\n<\/p>\n
Ext.P7 – True copy of the reply to the Ext P5 dated 3.6.2003 together with<\/p>\n
its annexures.\n<\/p>\n
Ext.P8   –   True   copy   of   the   questionnaire   issued   to   the   petitioner   by   the<\/p>\n
Secretary of the second respondent Panchayat dated nil.<\/p>\n
Ext.P9 – True copy of the reply dated 16.7.2003 furnished by the petitioner<\/p>\n
to the questionnaire as mentioned in Ext P8 herein.\n<\/p>\n
Ext.P10 – True copy of ;the order No A4-353\/2003 dated 22.08.2003 of the<\/p>\n
second respondent Panchayat to the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
Ext.P11   –   True   copy   of   the   report   on   ground   water   conditions   at   Pepsico<\/p>\n
India Holdings (P) Ltd. Wise Park, Industrial Development Area, Kanjikode<\/p>\n
dated 19.08.2003<\/p>\n
Ext.P12 – True copy of report on Environmental Impact Assessment on the<\/p>\n
ground   water   pumping   at   the   petitioner’s   plant   prepared   by   Dr   N.<\/p>\n
Kittu,Member (Retd) Central Ground Water Board, dated Nil<\/p>\n
Ext.P13 – True copy of the diagrammatical map showing the dyke zone and<\/p>\n
geographical   distance   between   petitioner’s   plant   and   surrounding   villages<\/p>\n
dated Nil<\/p>\n
Ext.P14 – True copy of the diagrammatical map demonstrating the rainwater<\/p>\n
WPC 27334\/03 and 27736\/04                      20<\/span><\/p>\n
harvesting   initiated   by   the   petitioner’s   plant   and   the   recharge   of   the   bore<\/p>\n
wells, dated Nil.\n<\/p>\n
Ext.P16   –   True   copy   of   the   statement   showing   ground   water   level   in<\/p>\n
borewells 2001-2004<\/p>\n
Ext.P17   –   True   copy   of   the   statement   showing   details   of   water   recharge<\/p>\n
through various structures.\n<\/p>\n
Ext.P18  – True copy of the statement showing  rainfall at Kanjikode 1993-<\/p>\n
2004.\n<\/p>\n
\nSecond Respondent’s exhibits:\n<\/p>\n
\nExt.R2(a)   –   True   copy   of   the   order   No   262\/2000   dated   5.5.2000   of   the<\/p>\n
Secretary of second respondent Panchayat.\n<\/p>\n
Ext.R2(b)   –   True   copy   of   the   letter   dated   13.3.2000   of   the   petitioner<\/p>\n
company to the Panchayat requesting order for setting up bottling plant.<\/p>\n
Ext.R2(c) True copy of application dated 12.03.2000 of petitioner company<\/p>\n
to the Panchayat for sanction to construct building and install motor.<\/p>\n
Ext.R2(d) – True copy of licence dated 22.11.2000 issued to the petitioner<\/p>\n
company by the second respondent Panchayat.\n<\/p>\n
Ext.R2(e) – True copy of letter dated 2.2.2001 of petitioner company to the<\/p>\n
second  respondent for change of name in Ext. R2(d)<\/p>\n
Ext.R2(f) – True copy of letter dated 25.9.2001 of the petitioner company tot<\/p>\n
he   second   respondent   for   change   of   name   as   Aradhana   Beverages<\/p>\n
Manufacturing Company<\/p>\n
Ext.R2(g) – True copy of letter dated 01.11.2001 of petitioner company for<\/p>\n
second respondent requesting for licence with further changed name.<\/p>\n
Ext.R2(h) – True copy of letter dated 21.11.2001 of the petitioner company<\/p>\n
to the second respondent requesting for permission to use crown, closures,<\/p>\n
labels etc.<\/p>\n
Ext.R2(i) – True copy of table showing fall of water level in open well No<\/p>\n
142 of second respondent Panchayat<\/p>\n
Ext.R2(j) series  – True copies  of representations  of local people to second<\/p>\n
respondent showing scarcity of water.\n<\/p>\n
Ext.R2(k) – True copy of proceedings No LR(E)2216\/03 dated 5.3.2003 of<\/p>\n
Commission   of   Land   Revenue   declaring   Palakkad   districts   as   drought<\/p>\n
stricken area.\n<\/p>\n
Ext.R2(l) – True copy of table showing rain fall data from 1999-2002 in the<\/p>\n
Walayar  Dam Area  issued  by the  Executive  Engineer,  Irrigation  Division,<\/p>\n
WPC 27334\/03 and 27736\/04                     21<\/span><\/p>\n
Chittoor, Palakkad<\/p>\n
Ext.R2(m)   –   True   copy   of   the   letter   dated   23.2.2004   of   the   Kerala   State<\/p>\n
Pollution Control Board to the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
Ext.R2(n)  – True  copy  of the   renewal   of consent   dated   6.4.2002   from  the<\/p>\n
State Pollution Control Board to the petitioner company with annexures.<\/p>\n
Ext.R2(o)- True copy of the news report  in Mathrubhoomi Cochin Edition<\/p>\n
dated 17.10.2003<\/p>\n
Ext.R2(p) – True copy of order G.O(Rt) No 672\/2001\/ID dated 24.7.2001<\/p>\n
Ext.   R2(q)-   True   copy   of   the   proceedings   dated   30.3.2005   of   the<\/p>\n
Commissioner of Land Revenue<\/p>\n
Third respondent’s exhibits:\n<\/p>\n
\nExt.R3   (a)   –   True   copy   of   statutory   notification   GO(Rt)No   672\/2001\/ID<\/p>\n
dated 24\/07\/2001 issued by the first respondent.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                               [true copy]<\/p>\n
WPC 27334\/03 and 27736\/04                    22<\/span><\/p>\n
W.P.C. No 27736 of 2004<\/p>\n
Appendix<\/p>\n
Petitioner’s exhibits:\n<\/p>\n
\nExt.P1   -True   copy   of   permit   issued   to   the   petitioner   by   the   second<\/p>\n
respondent Panchayat vide Order No 262\/2000 dated 05.05.2000<\/p>\n
Ext.P2   –   True   copy   of   the   Notification   G.O.(Rt)No   672\/2001-ID   dated<\/p>\n
24.07.01(SRO 730\/2001)<\/p>\n
Ext.P3-   True   copy   of   writ   petition   (Civil)   No   8897   of   2004   dated<\/p>\n
12.03.2004 as a public interest litigation.\n<\/p>\n
Ext.P4   –   True   copy   of   show   cause   notice   No   A4-262\/2000-04   dated<\/p>\n
20.04.2004 issued by the 2nd respondent Panchayat<\/p>\n
Ext.P5   – True   copy   of  the   reply   to   Ext  P4   show  cause  notice   dated   April<\/p>\n
24,2004<\/p>\n
Ext.P6   –   True   copy   of   the   order   dated   15.9.2004   No   A4-262\/04   of   the<\/p>\n
second respondent Panchayat with its enclosures.\n<\/p>\n
Ext.P7  –  True  copy  of  the   interim  order   dated  22.04.2004  of  the  Division<\/p>\n
Bench of this court in W.P.(C) No 27334 of 2003<\/p>\n
Second respondent’s exhibits:\n<\/p>\n
\nExt. R2(a) – True copy of the application dated 12.3.2000 of the petitioner.<\/p>\n
Ext.R2(b) – True copy of the letter dated 13.3.2000 issued by the petitioner<\/p>\n
to the Panchayat President, Pudussery Central Village.<\/p>\n
Ext.R2(c)   –   True   copy   of   the   letter   No   3934   dated   30.10.2000   of   the<\/p>\n
Alternate Executive Officer, State Single Window Clearance Board.<\/p>\n
Ext.R2(d)   –   True   copy   of   the   letter   No   48498\/M2\/2000\/LSGD   dated<\/p>\n
2.11.2000   of   the   Secretary   to   Government,   Local   Self   Government<\/p>\n
Department.\n<\/p>\n
Ext.R2(f) – True copy of the letter of request of the company dated 2.2.2001<\/p>\n
Ext.R2(g)-  True copy of the letter dated 25.9.2001 issued to the Secretary<\/p>\n
Pudussery Panchayat, Pudussery<\/p>\n
Ext.R2(h) – True copy of the letter dated 1.11.2001 received by the second<\/p>\n
respondent from the company.\n<\/p>\n
\nWPC 27334\/03 and 27736\/04                     23<\/span><\/p>\n
Ext.R2(i) – True copy of the proceedings No LR(E) 2.216\/03 dated 5.3.2003<\/p>\n
of the Commissioner of Land Revenue<\/p>\n
Ext.R2(j)-   True   copy   of   the   rainfall   data   in   the   office   of   the   Executive<\/p>\n
Engineer, Irrigation Division, Chittur from 1999-2002<\/p>\n
Ext.R2(k) – True copy of the table showing fall of water level in open well<\/p>\n
No 142<\/p>\n
Ext.R2(l) – True copy of the page 12 of Ext P1 and page 21 and 22 of Ext P7<\/p>\n
in OP 27334\/2003 of the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
Ext.R2(m) – True  copy of the  notice  No  PCB  \/H&R\/PLKD  \/257\/02  dated<\/p>\n
26.4.2004 issued by the second respondent.\n<\/p>\n
Ext.R2(n) – True copy of the Order dated 11.2.2004 in W.P.(C)No 27334 of<\/p>\n
2003 of this court.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                               [true copy]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Pepsico India Holdings Pvt. Ltd vs State Of Kerala on 10 April, 2007 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 […]<\/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-38665","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nPepsico India Holdings Pvt. Ltd vs State Of Kerala on 10 April, 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\/pepsico-india-holdings-pvt-ltd-vs-state-of-kerala-on-10-april-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Pepsico India Holdings Pvt. Ltd vs State Of Kerala on 10 April, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pepsico-india-holdings-pvt-ltd-vs-state-of-kerala-on-10-april-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=\"2007-04-09T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-03-03T02:54:33+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=\"26 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pepsico-india-holdings-pvt-ltd-vs-state-of-kerala-on-10-april-2007#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pepsico-india-holdings-pvt-ltd-vs-state-of-kerala-on-10-april-2007\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Pepsico India Holdings Pvt. Ltd vs State Of Kerala on 10 April, 2007\",\"datePublished\":\"2007-04-09T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-03-03T02:54:33+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pepsico-india-holdings-pvt-ltd-vs-state-of-kerala-on-10-april-2007\"},\"wordCount\":5121,\"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\\\/pepsico-india-holdings-pvt-ltd-vs-state-of-kerala-on-10-april-2007#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pepsico-india-holdings-pvt-ltd-vs-state-of-kerala-on-10-april-2007\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pepsico-india-holdings-pvt-ltd-vs-state-of-kerala-on-10-april-2007\",\"name\":\"Pepsico India Holdings Pvt. Ltd vs State Of Kerala on 10 April, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2007-04-09T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-03-03T02:54:33+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pepsico-india-holdings-pvt-ltd-vs-state-of-kerala-on-10-april-2007#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pepsico-india-holdings-pvt-ltd-vs-state-of-kerala-on-10-april-2007\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pepsico-india-holdings-pvt-ltd-vs-state-of-kerala-on-10-april-2007#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Pepsico India Holdings Pvt. Ltd vs State Of Kerala on 10 April, 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":"Pepsico India Holdings Pvt. Ltd vs State Of Kerala on 10 April, 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\/pepsico-india-holdings-pvt-ltd-vs-state-of-kerala-on-10-april-2007","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Pepsico India Holdings Pvt. Ltd vs State Of Kerala on 10 April, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pepsico-india-holdings-pvt-ltd-vs-state-of-kerala-on-10-april-2007","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2007-04-09T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-03-03T02:54:33+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":"26 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pepsico-india-holdings-pvt-ltd-vs-state-of-kerala-on-10-april-2007#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pepsico-india-holdings-pvt-ltd-vs-state-of-kerala-on-10-april-2007"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Pepsico India Holdings Pvt. Ltd vs State Of Kerala on 10 April, 2007","datePublished":"2007-04-09T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-03-03T02:54:33+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pepsico-india-holdings-pvt-ltd-vs-state-of-kerala-on-10-april-2007"},"wordCount":5121,"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\/pepsico-india-holdings-pvt-ltd-vs-state-of-kerala-on-10-april-2007#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pepsico-india-holdings-pvt-ltd-vs-state-of-kerala-on-10-april-2007","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pepsico-india-holdings-pvt-ltd-vs-state-of-kerala-on-10-april-2007","name":"Pepsico India Holdings Pvt. Ltd vs State Of Kerala on 10 April, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2007-04-09T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-03-03T02:54:33+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pepsico-india-holdings-pvt-ltd-vs-state-of-kerala-on-10-april-2007#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pepsico-india-holdings-pvt-ltd-vs-state-of-kerala-on-10-april-2007"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pepsico-india-holdings-pvt-ltd-vs-state-of-kerala-on-10-april-2007#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Pepsico India Holdings Pvt. Ltd vs State Of Kerala on 10 April, 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\/38665","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=38665"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/38665\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=38665"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=38665"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=38665"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}