IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE MONDAY, THE 11TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 22ND MAGHA 1929 WP(C).No. 4807 of 2008(V) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ M.K.M.SALIM, S/O.KUNJUPILLA, PROPRIETOR PAYIPRA GRANITES, PAYIPRA (P.O), MUVATTUPUZHA, (MUNDETH THEKKEVEETTIL HOUSE, WEST VENGOLA (P.O), PERUMBAVOOR). BY ADV. SRI.C.K.ABDUL RAHIM RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE PAYIPRA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PAYIPRA (P.O), MUVATTUPUZHA, PIN - 686 673. 2. SMT.UMAIBA BEEVI, W/O.A.M.KUNJUBAVA, EZHUTHANIKKATT VEEDU, PAYIRA KARA, PAYIPRA (P.O), MUVATTUPUZHA. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE,J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No.4807 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated: 11th February, 2008 JUDGMENT In the nature of the decision I am taking in this Writ Petition, I am not inclined to issue notice to the respondents. Admittedly the 2nd respondent has already approached the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions against the earlier resolution of the Panchayat deciding to issue licence to the petitioner subject to the consent to operate the unit in favour of the petitioner by the Pollution Control Board. Now under Ext.P20 resolution, the Panchayat Committee decides to issue stop memo to the petitioner against operation of the crusher unit till such time as the Tribunal takes a decision on the appeal preferred by the 2nd respondent. Obviously, the Tribunal has not so far issued any stay orders on the basis of the stay petition filed by the 2nd respondent. The question of issuance of stop memo is not taken on the basis of the agenda slated for discussion and decision in the Panchayat Committee on 21.1.2008. But it is evident from Ext.P20 itself that when deliberations were about to be over, certain people would enter the Council hall and request the Panchayat Committee to take an early decision on their representation for stoppage of the crusher unit of the petitioner and W.P.C.No.4807/08 - 2 - the President of the Panchayat granted permission for a discussion of the issue and accordingly Ext.P20 was issued. Having already issued a licence to the petitioner, it was not proper on the part of the Panchayat to have virtually cancelled that licence without notice to the petitioner. However since the issue is already before the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions in the form of an appeal preferred by the 2nd respondent, I relegate the petitioner also to the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions. If the petitioner prefers an appeal against Exts.P19 and P20 before the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions, the Tribunal will entertain that appeal and dispose of the same along with the appeal preferred by the 2nd respondent against the Panchayat resolution deciding to issue licence to the petitioner. However, considering the merits noticed and the grounds raised against Ext.P20, I stay the operation of Exts.P19 and P20 for a period of two months subject to the orders which may be passed by the Tribunal on the stay petition filed by the 2nd respondent and any other petition filed by the petitioner against them. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. srd PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE W.P.C.No.4807/08 - 3 -