High Court of KeralaWP(C)/11898/2015disposed of

Aaramam Rock Pvt. Ltd. v. Nellanadu Grama Panchayat

2015-04-09Honourable Mr. Justice Dama Seshadri Naidu6 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU THURSDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF APRIL 2015/19TH CHAITHRA, 1937 WP(C).No. 11898 of 2015 (J) -------------------------------------------- PETITIONER:

AARAMAM ROCK PVT. LTD., NELLANADU P.O., KEEZHAYIKONAM, VENJARAMOODU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 606 REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR SRI.ABDUL SALAM.

BY ADVS.SRI.BECHU KURIAN THOMAS SRI.PAUL JACOB (P) SRI.ENOCH DAVID SIMON JOEL SRI.S.SREEDEV SRI.RONY JOSE SRI.GEORGE A.CHERIAN RESPONDENTS:

1. NELLANADU GRAMA PANCHAYAT, NELLANADU, VENJARAMOODU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REP. BY ITS SECRETARY.

2. SECRETARY, NELLANADU GRAMA PANCHAYAT, NELLANADU, VENJARAMOODU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

BY ADV. SRI.M.H.HANILKUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09-04-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

APPENDIX IN WPC 11898/2015 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

EXT. P1 TRUE COPY OF THE CONSENT TO OPERATE DATED 28.10.2011 VALID TILL 30.04.2014 ISSUED BY THE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD EXT.P1(a) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 05.11.2014 ISSUED BY THE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD RENEWING EXT. P1 CONSENT TILL 30.04.2017 EXT. P2 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE FIRST RESPONDENT EXT. P2(a) TRUE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXT. P2 EXT. P3 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 28.03.2015 9WRONGLY SHOWN AS 28.03.2014) ISDSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER EXT. P3(a) TRUE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXT. P3 EXT. P4 TRUE DECISION NUMBERED AS V(2) TAKEN AT THE PANCHAYAT COMMITTEE MEETING HELD ON 27.03.2015 EXT. P4(a) TRUE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXT. P4 EXT. P5 TRUE COPY OF THE NOC DATED 16.09.2003 ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER TO THE SECOND RESPONDENT IN RESPECT OF THE CRUSHER UNIT EXT. P6 TRUE COPY OF THE NOC DATED 27.08.2003 ISSUED BY THE INSPECTOR OF FACTORIES AND BOILERS TO THE SECOND RESPONDENT IN RESPECT OF THE CRUSHER UNIT EXT. P6(a) TRUE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXT. P6 RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL.

/TRUE COPY/ P.S. TO JUDGE

Dama Seshadri Naidu, J.

------------------------------------------- W.P.(C)No.11898 of 2015 J -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 9th day of April, 2015

JUDGMENT

The petitioner, which runs a metal crusher unit, applied for what is said to be renewal of licence. It was rejected through Exhibit P4 by the Committee of the respondent Grama Panchayat by listing out certain objections. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.

2. The singular grievance of the petitioner, as has ben urged by the learned counsel, is that before passing Exhibit P4 the Committee of the respondent Grama Panchayat ought to have provided an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. According to him, all the defects are curable and given an opportunity the petitioner could have cured the same at the earliest point of time.

3. The learned counsel for the respondent Grama Panchayat has submitted that in the first place the petitioner's application for renewal is not maintainable. According to him, the initial licence came to an end in 2013. Thereafter, it was not renewed. Though the petitioner filed a statutory appeal against the refusal of the respondent Grama Panchayat to renew the licence way back in 2013, the said appeal, according to the learned counsel, was rejected by the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions, Thiruvananthapuram.

4. The learned counsel for the respondent Grama Panchayat has further submitted that very recently the National Green Tribunal in related proceedings issued directions to the petitioner to close down the unit. At any rate, he has submitted that if the petitioner submits an application after curing the defects, without having any conflict with the direction given by the learned Green

Tribunal, the respondent Grama Panchayat is willing to reconsider the same.

5. It is evident that Exhibit P4 order of rejection does not contain any objection with regard to the nonmaintainability of the application for 'renewal'. It has only listed out certain defects which the petitioner is willing to cure. It is also pertinent to note that going by the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the formats for fresh licence and renewal of licence are one and the same, there cannot be any impediment for the Committee of the respondent Grama Panchayat to consider the petitioner's application, if it desires, for issuance of a fresh licence instead of renewal, given the fact that the licence granted earlier came to an end way back in 2013.

6. In the facts and circumstances, if the petitioner resubmits its application after curing the defects pointed out in Exhibit P4, the respondent Grama Panchayat shall

consider the same treating that as if it were an application for fresh licence, if it is of the said opinion, and pass appropriate orders thereon, at any rate, within thirty days from the date of re-submission of the application. With the above observation, the writ petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs.

Dama Seshadri Naidu, Judge tkv