IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR WEDNESDAY, THE 30TH JUNE 2010 / 9TH ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 34767 of 2009(M) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- K.BALAN S/O.BAPPU, AGED 61 YEARS, RESIDING AT KEEZTHADI, POST NADDAKKUTHAZHA- 673112,VATAKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, KERALA STATE BY ADV. SRI.B.KRISHNAN SRI.R.PARTHASARATHY RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE SECRETARY, NADAPURAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT POST KALLACHI, VATAKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, KERALA STATE. 2. NADAPURAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT PRESIDENT, NADAPURAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT, POST KALLACHI, VATAKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, KERALA STATE 3. STATE OF KERALA, SECRETARY, LOCAL ADMINISTRATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.C.VALSALAN FOR R1 SRI.K.RAKESH ROSHAN FOR R1 SMT.THUSHARA.V FOR R1 SRI.C.VALSALAN FOR R2 GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SMT.N.SUDHA DEVI FOR R3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P.(C). No.34767/2009-M ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated this the 30th day of June, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner herein is aggrieved by the denial of licence applied for under the Kerala Panchayat Raj (Issue of Dangerous and Offensive Trades and Factories) Rules, 1996. What is involved is the issuance of a licence for a workshop, where the petitioner has proposed to install a 3 horse power motor. The communication issued by the Panchayat is made available as Ext.P5. Therein it is mentioned that the application submitted to the Secretary was discussed in the meeting of the Panchayat held on 17/11/2009. The only objection is that the consent of nearby owners have not been obtained and there are complaints by some of the nearby residents. 2. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Secretary alone is competent to issue the licence under Rule 12(3)(d) of the relevant Rules. It is further pointed out that what is sought to be established is a workshop which will not cause any pollution problem to any of the residents in the locality and, there are no residences in and around 100 metres. It is further pointed out that the petitioner has already obtained order from the Pollution Control Board, a copy of W.P.(C). No.34767/2009 -:2:- which is produced as Ext.P3. Therefore, it is pointed out that the petitioner will comply with all the conditions provided in Ext.P3 and, the Pollution Control Board being the authority to inspect and find out any aspect of pollution, the certificate alone is relevant while considering the objections, if any, by the residents of the locality. 3. The Panchayat has filed a counter affidavit justifying their stand and the petitioner has filed a reply affidavit also. What is mentioned in the counter affidavit is that there are number of complaints by the local adjacent residents and they had also submitted petition [Ext.R1(a)] before the District Collector on apprehending pollution of water in the nearby wells etc.. 4. A reading of the complaint, Ext.R1(a), shows that the apprehension is that by the spreading of greese, oil etc, in the nearby areas, the drinking water will be affected. They have also mentioned that there may be nuisance due to smoke etc. which may affect the peaceful life of the nearby residents. The issue turns upon the question whether the unit will generate pollution. This aspect will surely be governed by the conditions prescribed by the Pollution Control Board and the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he will comply with all the conditions provided therein. It is submitted that there W.P.(C). No.34767/2009 -:3:- will not be any spreading of greese or oil outside of the premises of the workshop and all the other conditions will be satisfied by the petitioner. 5. The learned counsel for the Panchayat also submitted that in the event of allowing the starting of the unit, the petitioner will have to be directed to comply with the conditions in a stringent manner. 6. Evidently, the application was considered by the Committee of the Panchayat even though the Secretary is the competent authority to consider the application. In that view of the matter itself the resolution cannot survive. The Licensing Authority being the Secretary, he alone is competent to take a decision in the matter. 7. In the light of the above, the writ petition is allowed. Ext.P5 is quashed. There will be a direction to the Secretary to consider the application for grant of licence on its merits and communicate the decision within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment. In the light of the findings rendered above, the Secretary will be free to impose such conditions for complying with those provided in Ext.P3 consent to operate, by the Pollution Control Board. No costs. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) ms