IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE MONDAY, THE 12TH MARCH 2007 / 21ST PHALGUNA 1928 WP(C).No. 8437 of 2008(D) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ VIJAY CONSTRUCTIONS ENGINEERS AND CONTRACTORS, MYKULANGARA, KINGINIMATTOM P.O., KOLENCHERY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT PIN 682311, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER M.P. ITTOOP. BY ADV. SRI.P.FAZIL SMT.JAYASREE MANOJ SRI.SREEJITH V.S. RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. AIKKARANADU GRAMA PANCHAYATH KUDAYIRUPPU P.O., KOLENCHERY ERNAKULAM DISTRICT REP. BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE SECRETARY AIKKARANADU GRAMA PANCHAYATH KADAYIRUPPU P.O.,KOLENCHERY ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 3. SCARIA MATHAI,AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS S/O.KUNJU, PUTHUPPADIYIL HOUSE PERINGOL P.O., KOLENCHERY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT PIN 682 311. BY G.P. SRI.K.J.MUHAMMED ANZAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, J. ---------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO. 8437 of 2008 ---------------------------------- Dated this the 12th day of March , 2008 JUDGMENT I have heard the submissions of Sri.P.Fazil, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.K.J.Muhammed Anzar, the learned Government Pleader. 2. Under challenge in this Writ Petition is Ext.P8 order issued by the Panchayat directing the petitioner to stop the operation of their Bitumen Mixer Unit on the ground that the petitioner has not taken out any licence from the Panchayat and also on the ground that the operation of the plant is generating pollution of various types to the detriment of the local public. My attention was drawn by the learned counsel for the petitioner to Section 233B(d) of the Panchayat Raj Act. The machine in question is a portable machine and the volume of pollution, which is likely to be generated by this machine, will be relatively lesser than the pollution which will be caused by concrete mixing WPC No.8437/2008 2 machines. Bitumen Mixer Unit comes within the category of “machines” as envisaged by Section 233B (d) of the Act and no licence is necessary, so submits the learned counsel for the petitioner. Submissions of the learned counsel have some appeal. The learned counsel also drew my attention to Ext.P11 consent given to the petitioner by the Pollution Control Board for the Bitumen Mixer Plant in question. According to the petitioner, nobody has so far complained to the Pollution Control Board that any of the conditions incorporated in Ext.P11 have been violated. There is no violation of the conditions in Ext.P11, according to the learned counsel. I do not find any reason to doubt the correctness of the above submissions. 3. At the same time, it is seen that obviously by way of abundant caution the petitioner has submitted Ext.P10 application before the Panchayat. Since Ext.P10 is pending before the Panchayat, which I am told is yet to be registered by the Panchayat, I dispose of this Writ Petition issuing the following directions; i). Respondents 1 and 2 are directed to register Ext.P10 application submitted by the petitioner immediately, consider the WPC No.8437/2008 3 same in the light of the petitioner's contention based on Section 233B(d) and also Ext.P11, hear the petitioner as well as the third respondent and take a correct decision on Ext.P10. ii). The Panchayat will comply with all the directions given herein above at the earliest and at any rate within one month of receiving a copy of this judgment. In the meanwhile, considering the merit prima facie noticed in the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner based on Section 233 B(d), I direct the Panchayat to keep in abeyance all coercive action against the petitioner for implementation of Ext.P8 till the decision is taken on Ext.P10. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE. dpk