IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD JULY 2008 / 1ST SRAVANA 1930 WP(C).No. 20859 of 2008(G) --------------------------- ---------- PETITIONER: ------------------ JOHN JACOB, AGED 45 YEARS, S/O.LATE SRI.P.P.JACOB, PROPRIETOR, M/S.PEPTURNINDIA, RESIDING AT MATTAKKEL PERUMAL BHAVAN, COLLECTORATE P.O., KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.M.V.THAMBAN SRI.R.REJI SRI.B.BIPIN RESPONDENTS: ---------------------- 1. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, LOCAL ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOTTAYAM. 4. THE GENERAL MANAGER, DISTRICT INDUSTRIES CENTRE, KOTTAYAM. 5. THE VAZHAPPALLY GRAMA PANCHAYATH KURISUMMAL PO., CHANGANASSERY REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 6. SRI.M.C.ANTONY, PRESIDENT, VAZHAPPALLY GRAMA PANCHAYATH KURISUMMAL P.O., CHANGANASSERY. ADV. SRI.P.KURUVILLA JACOB FOR R5 & 6 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.K.R.DEEPA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.20859/2008 APPENDIX PETITIONERS EXHIBITS EXT.P1:- COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT INDUSTRIAL CENTRE, KOTTAYAM DT. 18.7.07. EXT.P2:- COPY OF THE SALE DEED DT. 16.1.08 OF CHANGANASSERY SRO. EXT.P3:- COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION SRO . NO.929/01 DT. 8.10.2001, ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, INDUSTRIES (F) DEPARTMENT. EXT.P4:- COPY OF THE BANK STATEMENT ISSUED BY THE BANK OF BORODA TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P5:- COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY, VAZHAPALLY GRAMA PANCHAYATH DT. 8.7.08. EXT.P6:- COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION ORDER ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT DT. 21.8.2008. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS EXT.R5(a):- COPY OF THE LETTER DT. 10.6.08 OF THE ADDITIONAL SECRETARY TO DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES, TRIVANDRUM COMMUNICATED TO THE PRESIDENT OF VAZHAPPALLY GRAMA PANCHAYATH. EXT.R5(b):- COPY OF THE REPORT DT. 7.9.06 OF THE RETIRED SUPERINTENDING HYDRO GEOLOGIST OF THE GROUND WATER DEPARTMENT, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM SUBMTTED TO VAZHAPPALLY GRAMA PANCHAYATH. EXT.R5(c):- COPY OF THE FEASIBILITY CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, P.H. SUB DIVISION K.W.A., CHANGANASSERY REGARDING ''MOOLAYIL WATER SUPPLY SCHEME'' PROPOSED BY THE PANCHAYATH. EXT.R5(d):- COPY OF THE ORDER NO.G1-448/08/K.DIS./DT. 17.1.08 OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATH , KOTTAYAM COMMUNICATED TO 5TH RESPONDENT. /TRUE COPY/ P.S. TO JUDGE tss ANTONY DOMINIC, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C) No. 20859 OF 2008 G = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 23rd day of July 2008 J U D G M E N T Though the petitioner is seeking to challenge Exts. P5 and P6, when the writ petition was taken up, the counsel has given up his challenge to Ext. P6 and is confining his relief to Ext. P5 issued by the 5th respondent Panchayat. Petitioner submits that he is the owner of a small scale industrial unit by name Pepturn India Limited. It is stated that in order to set up his industrial unit he has purchased a plot of land by Ext. P2 sale deed. 2. According to him, the area covered by Ext. P2 sale deed is included in Ext. P3 notification issued by the 1st respondent, in terms of the provisions contained in the Kerala Industrial Single Window Clearance Boards and Industrial Township Area Development Act, 1999 and is a part of a private industrial estate notified by Ext. P3. According to the petitioner, soon after he commenced construction availing of financial assistance from W.P.(C) No. 20859 OF 2008 -2- commercial banks, the respondent Panchayat issued Ext. P5 communication on 8.7.2008 directing the petitioner to stop further construction in his plot of land. In this writ petition, petitioner is impugning Ext. P5. 3. The only ground that is urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that in view of Ext. P3 notification declaring the area covered by Ext. P2 sale deed as a private industrial estate he is entitled to the benefit of Section 6 of the aforesaid Act. Counsel submits that as is evident from Ext. P5 order issued by the Panchayat the reason for the same is that the petitioner had resorted to construction without obtaining permit from the Panchayat. 4. It is contended that in view of Section 6, notwithstanding anything contained in the Panchayat Raj Act, industrial undertakings being established or proposed to be established in an industrial area, shall be exempted from obtaining permits from Municipalities or Grama Panchayats, Town Planning Department or Development Authorities for construction of buildings for starting industrial undertakings. W.P.(C) No. 20859 OF 2008 -3- 5. The learned counsel appearing for the Panchayat resists the prayer of the petitioner and has filed a counter affidavit also. In the counter affidavit the Panchayat admits that Ext. P3 notification has been issued. However, Panchayat submits that though a total area of 12.69 acres of land was declared as a private industrial estate by Ext. P3 notification, proceedings have already been initiated for getting the notification set aside. They are also referring to Ext. R5 (a) Govt. Order dated 10.6.2008 which refers to the proceedings initiated in this direction. 6. Though there are several other contentions raised by the Panchayat, in my view, the decision in this case will turn on the question whether the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of Section 6 of the Act. Admittedly, Ext. P3 notification has been issued under the Act and a total area of 12.69 acres of land, including the land purchased by the petitioner under Ext. P2, has been declared as a private industrial estate. So long as the land in question is covered by such a notification, there is no reason to think that the petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of Section 6 of the Act. If it is so, necessarily, the petitioner is entitled to commence construction W.P.(C) No. 20859 OF 2008 -4- without obtaining any permit from the local body, vi. the 5th respondent Panchayat. Necessary consequence of this conclusion is that the assumption of the Panchayat in Ext. P5 that the petitioner has committed an illegality in commencing construction without obtaining permit is clearly erroneous since there is no such legal requirement. 7. For that reason, Ext. P5 has to be invalidated and I do so. Accordingly, Ext. P5 will stand quashed and the writ petition will stand disposed of. I clarify that this judgment will not stand in the way of the Panchayat or any authority in getting Ext. P3 notification withdrawn and taking any action as is permissible in law. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE jan/-