IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD MARCH 2010 / 12TH PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 25912 of 2009(H) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- A.K.MUHAMMED, MANAGING PARTNER,STAR WOOD INDUSTRIES & SAW MILLS,NEAR PALLIKKAVALA,KANDANTHARA, PERUMBAVOOR,PIN-683 553. BY ADVS. MR.M.RAJASEKHARAN NAYAR, SMT.K.N.RAJANI, SMT.ANILA PETER. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. VAZHAKKULAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY,MARAMBILLY P.O., ALUVA-683 107. 2. TRIBUNAL FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MIEDICAL COLLEGE P.O.,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 011. *ADDL. R3. IMPLEADED: 3. GREEN CHANNEL COUNTER, REPRESENTED BY THE GENERAL MANAGER, DISTRICT INDUSTRIES CENTRE, KOCHI – 682 020. *ADDL. R3. IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 03/03/2010 IN I.A. NO. 223/2010. R1 BY ADVS. DR.K.P.SATHEESAN, MR.K.K.GOPINATHAN NAIR, MR.M.R.JAYAPRASAD, MR.P.MOHANDAS (ERNAKULAM), MR.MATHEW SUNNY. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/03/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.25912/2009-H: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE RENEWED LICENCE DTD. 19/06/2008. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE ENTREPRENEURS MEMORANDUM NUMBER 32081102565 ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT INDUSTRIES CENTRE DTD. 31/01/2008. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD DTD. 26/05/2008. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE LETTER OF THE PETITIONER TO THE R.1. DTD. 05/08/2008. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT CIRCULAR NO.B/4911/93 DTD. 01/07/1993. EXT.P.6: COPY OF THE LETTER NO. C3/18/08 ISSUED BY THE R.1. TO THE PETITIONER DTD. 05/03/2009. EXT.P.7: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C).NO.28466 OF 2008 OF THE HONOURABLE HIGH COURT DTD. 31/07/2009. EXT.P.8: COPY OF THE APPEAL MEMORANDUM FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE R.2. DTD.20/08/2009. EXT.P.9: COPY OF THE APPLICATION ALONG WITH THE AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE R.2. DTD. 20/08/2009. EXT.P.10: COPY OF THE ORDER IN I.A. NO. 975/2009 IN UNNUMBERED APPEAL OF 2009 OF THE R.2. DTD. 20/08/2009. EXT.P.10.A: COPY OF THE ORDER IN UNNUMBERED APPEAL OF 2009 OF THE R.2. DTD. 20/08/2009. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE. Prv. ANTONY DOMINIC, J. -------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO.25912 OF 2009 (H) -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of March, 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioner has applied for a licence under the Kerala Panchayat Raj (Issue of License to Dangerous and Offensive Trades & Factories) Rules, 1996. By Ext.P6 that application was rejected mainly on the ground that, if the capacity of the existing motor of the petitioner is expanded by installing 160 HP motor as proposed, it is likely to cause pollution and nuisance to the neighboring residents. 2. That order was challenged before this court in WP(c). No.28466/08, which was dismissed as withdrawn by judgment dated 31.7.2009. Petitioner thereafter filed appeal before the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions, that appeal was also dismissed for the reason that the appeal was time barred. It was thereafter that this writ petition was filed. 3. During the pendency of the writ petition, it is seen that the petitioner has filed an appeal before the Green Channel Counter in terms of Rule 12(4) of the D&O License Rules referred to above. A copy of the appeal preferred by the petitioner is produced as Ext.P11. When the matter came up for orders, counsel only seeks an WPC.No. 25912/09 :2 : order requiring the Green Channel Counter, before which Ext.P11 has been filed to consider the said appeal. Though the counsel for the Panchayat opposed the prayer, fact remains that Rule 12(4) of the Rule provides for an appeal and therefore if an appeal is received, the appellate authority is bound to consider the same. Therefore, I am not impressed by the objection raised by the counsel for the Panchayat about the maintainability of the appeal. In view of this, I dispose of this writ petition directing the additional 3rd respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P11 with notice to the petitioner and the Panchayat. Counsel for the Panchayat points out that, the license application of the petitioner was rejected mainly for the reason that there are complaints raised by the neighboring residents against the grant of license. In view of this it is made clear that it will be open to the Panchayat to issue notice to the complainants and they shall also be heard before orders are passed. Orders as above shall be passed as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within 2 months from the date of production of a copy of the judgment. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/ WPC.No. 25912/09 :3 :