IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH JULY 2011 / 5TH SRAVANA 1933 WP(C).No. 15189 of 2011(W) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- K.A.ABDUL RAHIMAN, S/O.ABDULKHADER, RESIDING AT KARUVALLY MUKALARKUDIHOUSE, VENGOLA P.O., PERUMANI, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, MANAGING PARTNER, SUN TIMBER INDUSTRIES, VENGOLA. BY ADV. MR.T.A.UNNIKRISHNAN MR.K.S.PRAVEEN RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE SENIOR TOWN PLANNER, REGIONAL TOWN PLANNING OFFICE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-682030. 2. THE VENGOLA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, VENGOLA P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-683554. ADV. MR.C.A.NAVAS FOR R2 MS.C.S.SIMI FOR R2 MS.NAJMA T. RASHEED GOVERNEMNT PLEADER MR.M.MUHAMMED SHAFI FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 15189 of 2011(W) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: ACKNOWLEDGEMENT DATED 17.1.2011. EXT.P2: NOC DATED 28.4.2011 ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER, ERNAKULAM. EXT.P3: NOC DTD. 26.5.2011 ISSUED BY THE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, FIRE AND RESCUE SERVICES, ERNAKULAM. EXT.P4: CONSENT TO ESTABLISH THE UNIT ISSUED BY THE KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD. EXT.P5: ORDER NO.A3/1624/11/D.DIS DTD. 5.5.2011 ISSUED BY R1. EXT.P6: COMMUNICATION DTD. 24.5.2011 ISSUED BY R2. EXT.P7: COMMUNICATION DTD. 1.6.2011 ISSUED BY R2. EXT.P8: LETTER DTD. 23.6.2011 ISSUED BY THE CHIEF FOREST CONSERVATOR. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL ........ // TRUE COPY // P.A TO JUDGE. HARUN-UL-RASHID, J. ------------------------ W.P.(C).No.15189 Of 2011 ---------------------- Dated this the 27th day of July, 2011. J U D G M E N T The writ petition is filed seeking to quash Exts.P5, P6 & P7 to the extent it imposes conditions for approving lay out of the building where the petitioner intends to start the industry and for a direction directing the 2nd respondent to grant permit to the petitioner for constructing the building, the lay out of which is approved as per Ext.P5 order without insisting for No Objection Certificate of the Forest Department and all the neighbouring persons. 2. The petitioner has applied for a permit for construction of a building in his property. The proposed building is for the purpose of starting a small scale industry, namely, plywood manufacturing unit. The application for permit was forwarded to the first respondent for the approval of the lay out of the building. The first respondent granted approval on certain conditions. Ext.P5 is the order of approval. Consequently, the Secretary of the Panchayath issued Ext.P6 communication directing the petitioner to produce the No Objection Certificates as directed in Ext.P5 order of approval of the lay out. Ext.P7 is the order passed by the Secretary of the Panchayath rejecting ::2:: W.P.(C).No.15189 Of 2011 the application for permit for the reason that the petitioner failed to produce NOCs as directed inExt.P6 communication. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that for the time being the petitioner has applied for building permit, that he has complied with all the statutory requirements for the construction of the building and that the Panchayath has also no case that the plan produced is not in conformity with the Building Rules. The statutory authorities shall have the duty to insist for NOCs from the competent authorities only when the petitioner submits an application for running the industry and not at the time of submission of the application for construction of the building. It is also pointed out that though NOCs as directed are not necessary for building permit, even then the petitioner has obtained NOCs from various statutory authorities except from the Forest Department. The petitioner produced the communication dated 23.6.2011 issued by the Chief Forest Conservator addressed to the petitioner informing that for the purpose of construction of a building NOC from the Forest Department is not necessary and that the NOC is necessary only when the petitioner apply for licence to start the industry. The petitioner also pointed out that the consent of the neighbouring people is not necessary ::3:: W.P.(C).No.15189 Of 2011 at the time of considering the application for permit for construction of the building. The learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that Exts.P6 & P7, insisting production of NOCs, are unjust and illegal. 4. The contentions of the petitioner has not been taken into consideration at the time of passing Exts.P6 communication and Ext.P7 order. In the above said circumstances, reconsideration of the matter is necessary. Therefore, a direction is issued to the 2nd respondent Panchayath to consider the application for building permit submitted by the petitioner afresh, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The 2nd respondent shall consider the application for building permit afresh without taking into account the conditions stipulated in Ext.P5. The writ petition is disposed of as above. HARUN-UL-RASHID, Judge. bkn/-