IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE TUESDAY, THE 26TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 7TH PHALGUNA 1929 WP(C).No. 6506 of 2008(Y) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ 1. SAITHALY, S/O. KOCHU MARAKKAR, KIDANGETH, KEEZHMAD, ALUVA. 2. K.K.BASHEER, S/O. KHADER, KIDANGETH, KEEZHMAD, ALUVA. BY ADV. SRI.T.K.VENUGOPALAN RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. MINI JOSEPH, W/O. JOSEPH, PARACKA HOUSE, GCDA ROAD, ALUVA. 2. KEEZHMADU GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, KEEZHMAD PANCHAYATH OFFICE, ERUMATHALA P.O., ALUVA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM - CHAIRMAN DISTRICT INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE. 4. THE GENERAL MANAGER, DISTRICT INDUSTRIES CENTRE ERNAKULAM - CONVENOR, DISTRICT INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE. 5. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. WPC.No.6506/08 ADDITIONAL RESPONDENT 6. KERALA STATE SINGLE WINDOW CLEARANCE BOARD REP. BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVT. IN THE INDUSTRIAL DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM Additional respondent No.6 suo motu impleaded vide judgment dtd. 26-02-2008 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.K.J.MOHAMMED ANZAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(c).No. 6506 OF 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 26th day of February, 2008 JUDGMENT Kerala State Single Window Clearance Board, represented by Principal Secretary to Government in the Industries Department, Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram is suo motu impleaded as the additional 6th respondent. Registry will carry out necessary corrections in the cause title. 2. Under challenge in this writ petition filed by the petitioners, who are residents near the site where the first respondent wanted to establish an industrial unit by name “Brothers Polymer” for production of plastic products, is Ext.P3 decision of the District Board under The Kerala Industrial Single Window Clearance Boards and Industrial Township Area Development Act, 1999, Act 5 of 2000. Under Ext.P3 the District Board has interfered with Ext.P2 decision of the Panchayat declining licence to the first respondent and recommended to the Panchayat to issue licence to the first respondent under Ext.P3. The convenor of the District Board ( General manger DIC) is authorised to WPC.No.6506/08 2 issue deemed licence certificate to the first respondent in the event of the Panchayat failing to comply with the recommendation. 3. When this writ petition came up for admission, Sri.K.J.Mohammed Anzar, Government Pleader, has taken notice on behalf of respondents 3 and 5. Sri.Anzar drew my attention to Section 11 of Act 5 of 2000 which provides remedy of appeal to the petitioners. Sri.T.K.Venugopalan, counsel for the petitioners submitted that it is not the statutory remedy of appeal provided under the Panchayat Raj Act which was invoked against Ext.P2 and in as much as under Ext.P3, Ext.P2 has been set aside and recommendations are issued to the Panchayat regarding issuance of licence to the first respondent, Ext.P3 is out side the jurisdictional competence of the District Board under Act 5 of 2000. According to him, the provisions of Act 5 of 2000 cannot override the provisions of the Panchayat Raj Act. The submissions of Sri.T.K.Venugopalan notwithstanding, I am of the view that the petitioners should invoke the remedies provided to them under Section 11 of Act 5 of 2000 against Ext.P3. 4. I dispose of the writ petition relegating the petitioners to that remedy. The petitioners are permitted to raise all available WPC.No.6506/08 3 grounds including the jurisdictional competence of the District Board to pass Ext.P3 in the context of the provisions in the Panchayat Raj Act. Since Section 11 (1) provides that appeals should be filed within 30 days, if an appeal is filed now, the same will be apparently time barred. However, having regard to the circumstance that the petitioners are being relegated by this court to prefer an appeal, I direct the State Board constituted under Act 5 of 2000 to entertain the appeal preferred by the petitioners against Ext.P3 and dispose of the same in accordance with law. If the petitioners prefer an appeal against Ext.P3 within three weeks from today, the petitioners are permitted to urge all available grounds in the appeal which will be disposed of by the State Board in accordance with law. Sri.T.K.Venugopalan submits that the first respondent has not started operations in her unit. Considering the above submission, the first respondent is directed to maintain status quo as obtaining today regarding the operation in her unit for a period of ten days from today. PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE JUDGE sv. WPC.No.6506/08 4