IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND JULY 2008 / 11TH ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 23212 of 2007(L) ----------------------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------------- BENNY LUKOSE, AGED 40 YEARS, S/O. LUKA, NOOTTANIKUNNEL, KADAPLAMATTOM P.O.,KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.M.J.THOMAS RESPONDENTS: ------------------------- 1. THE SECRETARY, KADAPLAMATTOM GRAMA PANCHAYAT, KADAPLAMATTOM,KOTTAYAM. 2. CHACKO KURIAN, AGED 43 YEARS, S/O. KARIACHAN,MANNATHUMAKKYIL HOUSE, KADAPLAMATTOM, ANDOOR, ELACKAD, MEENACHIL, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 3. THOMAS LUKA, AGED 78 YEARS, S/O. LUKA,VELIYAMKULATHIL, KADAPLAMATTOM P.O.,ELACKAD, MEENACHIL, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.V.G.ARUN FOR R.1 SRI.T.R.HARIKUMAR FOR R.1 SRI.P.C.HARIDAS FOR R2&3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.23212/2007 L APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE SKETCH. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE QUARRYING PERMIT ISSUED TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT DTD. 04/07/2005. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE STOP MEMO DTD. 14/03/2006. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) NO.11545/2006 DTD. 15/06/2006. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) NO.30907/2007 DTD. 22/11/2006. EXT.P6: COPY OF THE RESOLUTION DTD. 13/11/2006 OF THE GRAMA PANCHAYAT. EXT.P7: COPY OF THE RESOLUTION DTD. 28/05/2007. EXT.P8: COPY OF THE EXTRACT OF THE MEETING NOTICE BOOK DTD. 23/05/2007. EXT.P9: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 29/05/2007. EXT.P10: COPY OF THE NOTICE DTD. 21/04/2007 PUBLISHED BY PAPPA KURIAN MANNATHIKUZHIPARA, WHO IS THE 2ND RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: EXT.R2A: COPY OF THE RECEIPT DTD. 15/12/2007 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.R2B: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN CMA NO.1/07 OF SUB COURT, PALA. EXT.R2C: COPY OF THE PERMIT DTD. 12/12/2007 ISSUED BY THE GEOLOGIST. EXT.R2D: COPY OF THE FORM 22 LICENSE. EXT.R2E: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 24/10/2007 OF THE CONTROLLER OF EXPLOSIVES. EXT.R2F: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 30/06/2007 IN I.A.NO.2046/06 IN O.S.NO.290/06. /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss ANTONY DOMINIC, J. =============== W.P.(C) NO. 23212 OF 2007 L ==================== Dated this the 2nd day of July, 2008 J U D G M E N T The challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P7, the proceedings of the respondent Panchayat resolving to grant licence to the 2nd respondent for operating a granite quarry. 2. Petitioner claims to be a resident within the jurisdiction of the respondent Panchayat and the 2nd respondent is the licensee of a plot of land belonging to the 3rd respondent. According to the petitioner by Ext.P6 dated 13/11/2006, taking note of the circumstances that was prevailing,including the various complaints that were filed by the local residents, the Panchayat had resolved to decline licence to the 2nd respondent. 3. According to the petitioner, subsequently in a writ petition filed by the 2nd respondent as WP(C) No.30907/06, this court directed the Panchayat to consider the matter afresh and pass orders thereon. Ext.P5 is dated 22/11/2006. A reading of Ext.P5 shows that the Panchayat has to take up the application, hear the petitioner therein and others who are interested in the matter and take a fresh decision in the manner indicated. WPC 23212/07 :2 : Counsel for the petitioner has a case that although by Ext.P6 proceedings of 13/11/2006, the Panchayat had declined to grant licence to the 2nd respondent, this was not disclosed to this court when Ext.P5 judgment was rendered. 4. Be that as it may, the Panchayat reconsidered the matter and according to the petitioner, without notice to anyone and contrary to the directions in Ext.P5. As is seen from Ext.P6, thereafter, mainly on account of the employment opportunities that were available, licence were resolved to be granted to the 2nd respondent. It is challenging the aforesaid decision of the Panchayat, writ petition has been filed. 5. Though several contentions have been urged by the counsel for the petitioner, I am inclined to accept the plea of the learned counsel regarding the absence of hearing to persons affected by Ext.P7 and also that on account of the defect in the agenda of the meeting that preceded Ext.P7, this decision of the Panchayat needs to be invalidated. 6. As is seen from Ext.P5 judgment rendered by this court in WP (C) No.30907/06, the Panchayat was directed to hear others who are concerned in the matter. There is no dispute that the petitioner is concerned with the grant of licence and if that be so, the decision could WPC 23212/07 :3 : have been taken only after issuing notice to the petitioner also. This admittedly has not been done and therefore there is violation of the principles of natural justice and also non compliance with the direction in Ext.P5 judgment. 7. Ext.P8 is the notice of agenda of the meeting that was held on 28/5/2007 when Ext.P7 resolution was passed by the Panchayat granting licence to the petitioner. Rule 4 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act (Procedure for Panchayat meeting) Rules 199 5 lays down the manner in which agenda is prepared for the Panchayat meetings. In terms of Rule 4(3) of the said rule, subject which is not included in a given agenda for the particular meeting shall be considered in that meeting. Ext.P8 agenda shows that the grant of licence to the 2nd respondent was not an agenda in the said meeting. If that be so, the matter could not have been debated in the meeting and Ext.P7 decision concerning a matter which was decided without the agenda, needs to be invalidated on that ground as well. 8. For the aforesaid two reasons, I quash Ext.P7 and direct that the Panchayat shall reconsider the matter as directed in Ext.P5 judgment rendered by this court giving notice to the petitioner and others affected and also with the proper agenda. This shall be done, as expeditiously as WPC 23212/07 :4 : possible, at any rate within 6 weeks of production of a copy of this judgment. 9. It is submitted by the 2nd respondent that on the strength of Ext.P7, licence has been granted and that the licence has also been renewed. According to him, on the strength of the licence so granted, his establishment is functioning now. In view of this, I direct that despite quashing of Ext.P7, the status quo as it is obtaining today will be maintained by the parties for a period of six weeks and in the meantime the Panchayat shall reconsider the matter as directed above. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp