IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN THURSDAY, THE 7TH OCTOBER 2010 / 15TH ASWINA 1932 WP(C).No. 21112 of 2010(L) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- T.J.CHACKO, OZHAKOTTAYIL, THOTTUVA, KURUVILANGAD PO, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.S.VIJAYAN NAYAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- SECRETARY, KURAVILANGAD GRAMA PANCHAYATH KURAVILANGAD, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT-686 633. BY ADV. SRI.SIJI ANTONY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX IN W.P.(C) NO.21112 OF 2010 EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF LICENCE DATED 25.4.1990 EXT.P1(a) TRUE COPY OF THE REVERSE OF EXT.P1 EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF LICENCE DATED 27.4.2009 SHOULD UNDER THE NEW PANCHAYATH RAJ ACT, 1994. EXT.P2(a) TRUE COPY OF THE REVERSE OF EXT.P2 EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 11.3.2010 EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 31.5.2010 //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.21112 of 2010 ------------------------------- Dated this the 7th day of October, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner was granted a licence under the provisions of sections 96 and 97 of the Kerala Panchayat Act, 1960 and the provisions of the Kerala Panchayats (Licensing of Dangerous and Offensive Trades and Factories) Rules, 1963, to do business in storage and sale of Hides. Ext.P1 is a copy of one of such licence issued in the year 1990. After the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 was enacted and brought into force and the Kerala Panchayat Raj (Issue of Licence to Dangerous and Offensive Trades and Factories) Rules, 1996 was issued, the said licence was being periodically renewed. The last of the renewals was on 27.4.2009 for the period ending with 31.3.2010, evidenced by Ext.P2. In Ext.P2 also, the permitted activity was storage and sale of Hides. It appears that while the matters stood thus, the respondent Grama Panchayat received a complaint about the business activity being carried on by the petitioner. Thereupon, the Health Inspector attached to the Primary Health Centre, Koodalloor, inspected the petitioner's business premises and submitted Ext.R1(a) report dated 8.3.1010 to the respondent pointing out that the petitioner is running a tannery in his W.P.(C) No. 21112 of 2010 2 lands. It was reported that there are a large number of pits full of blood and salt and that there was only a solitary tank which was over flowing with waste water. 2. On receipt of Ext.R1(a), the respondent issued Ext.P3 letter dated 11.3.2010 informing the petitioner that the licence issued to him (Ext.P2) stands cancelled. Later, Ext.P4 letter dated 31.5.2010 was issued informing the petitioner that even though the licence has been cancelled, there are complaints to the effect that he is storing salt. He was cautioned that if he continues to run the business without a licence, the Panchayat will be constrained to take further steps against him. This writ petition was thereupon filed challenging Exts.P3 and P4 letters and seeking a direction to the respondent not to interfere with the business run by the petitioner. The petitioner contends that before Ext.P3 letter was issued, the procedure prescribed in section 233A of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 was not followed, and therefore, Ext.P3 is liable to be cancelled. He further contends that he was not put on notice or heard before Ext.P2 licence was cancelled and for that reason also, Ext.P3 is liable to be quashed. 3. The respondent has filed a counter affidavit dated W.P.(C) No. 21112 of 2010 3 16.9.2010. In paragraphs 5 and 6 thereof, it is stated as follows:- “5. .................. The circumstances which lead to the cancellation of license is that the panchayat received a petition from the nearby residents on 01/08/09 complaining that the functioning of petitioner's activity cause disburbance and pollute the drinking water stream. On receipt of the same this office called a report from the health inspector. The health inspector produced the report No.119/10 dated 08/03/10. After perusing the report this office decided to issue cancellation order. A true copy of the report of health inspector dated 08/03/10 is produced herewith for the proper adjudication of this case. The same may be marked as Exhibit R1(a). 6. Exhibit P4 notice, dated 31/05/2010 was issued from this office subsequent to the equiry on a petition of Mr.Sasidharan dtd 19/05/10, complaining that the salt bags kept in the premises were causing difficulty to him and other neighbours. A true copy of the petition dated 19/05/2010 is produced herewith and marked as Exhibit R1(b)”. 4. I heard Sri.S.Vijayan Nair, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.Siji Antony, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent Panchayat. I have also gone through the pleadings and the materials on record. Exts.P1 and P2, the licences issued to the petitioner do not permit him to run a tannery. By the said licences, the petitioner was permitted only to store and sell Hides. Entry 67 in Schedule I of the the Kerala Panchayat Raj W.P.(C) No. 21112 of 2010 4 (Issue of Licence to Dangerous and Offensive Trades and Factories) Rules, 1996 reads as follows:- “67. Hides – Storing, cleansing or selling” Ext.P2 licence issued to the petitioner permits him only to store and sell Hides. It does not permit him to store, cleanse and sell Hides. It is evident from Ext.R1(a) report submitted by the Health Inspector, Primary Health Centre, Koodalloor, that the petitioner is conducting cleansing operations to clean the Hides purchased by him before selling. It discloses that large quantities of water containing residual blood and salt is collected in pits dug in the petitioner's land and that waste water is overflowing from the tank constructed by the petitioner. The report also discloses that the business activity being carried on by the petitioner will result in pollution of the neighbouring water sources and cause nuisance to the neighbouring residents. In my opinion, as the licence issued to the petitioner does not permit him to clean Hides, but only permits him to store and sell Hides, the petitioner cannot conduct tanning operations. Further, the petitioner has no case that he has got the required consent to operate from the Kerala State Pollution Control Board to run a tannery or to store, clean and sell Hides. The petitioner has not pleaded or proved that he W.P.(C) No. 21112 of 2010 5 possesses any such consent. In such circumstances, I am of the opinion that the challenge to Ext.P3, even it is assumed that it was issued violating the procedure prescribed in section 233A of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, is without any merit. The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. P.N.RAVINDRAN, Judge. nj.