IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 26TH MARCH 2010 / 5TH CHAITHRA 1932 WP(C).No. 3552 of 2010(T) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. SUNIL JACOB, AMBALATHURUTHEL HOUSE, KOODALLOOR P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 2. ROSAKKUTTY THOMAS, INCHIPARAMBIL HOUSE, KOODALLOOR P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 3. E.V.JOSEPH, INCHIPARAMBIL HOUSE, KOODALLOOR P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, NOW RESIDING AT THEKKUMBHAGAM, TRIPUNITHURA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-682301. 4. KURUVILLA VARKEY, KARIKATTU, KADAPPOOR, KANAKKARI, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.VIJU ABRAHAM SRI.JOY C. PAUL SRI.DOMINIC JOHNSON RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. M/S.INFANT JESUS METAL CRUSHER, KIDANGOOR, REP. BY ITS PROPRIETOR, JAMES JOSEPH, VALLUTHOTHATHIL HOUSE, KOODALLOOR P.O., KODANGOOR, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 2. DISTRICT BOARD UNDER INDUSTRIAL SINGLE WINDOW CLEARENCE BOARD AND INDUSTRIAL TOWNSHIP AREA DEVELOPMENT ACT 1999, REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN (DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOTTAYAM). 3. KODANGOOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, KODANGOOR, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 4. CHIEF TOWN PLANNER, OFFICE OF THE CHIEF TOWN PLANNER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.MATHEW JOHN (K) FOR R1 SRI.AJEESH K.SASI FOR R1 SRI.V.G.ARUN FOR R3 SRI.T.R.HARIKUMAR FOR R3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX Ext.P1. True copy of the decision dated 5.12.2009. Ext.P2. True copy of the site inspection report submitted by the Assistant Engineer, LSGD Section, Kidangoor. Ext.P3. True copy of the letter dated 29.8.2009. Ext.P4. True copy of the letter dated 26.11.2009. Ext.P5. True copy of the order dated 1710.2007 // true copy // P.S to Judge. ANTONY DOMINIC, J. -------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO.3552 OF 2010 (T) -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 26th day of March, 2010 J U D G M E N T The challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P1, the decision taken by the 2nd respondent, directing the Secretary of the 3rd respondent Panchayat to grant licence to the first respondent for the establishment of a Stone Crusher Unit. The challenge raised by the petitioner is mainly on the ground that the width of access road to the proposed crusher unit is less than 5 meters. It is therefore submitted that, the access road does not satisfy the requirement of Rule 57(5) of the Kerala Municipality Building Rules. Counsel also referred me to Exts.P2,P3 and P4, the report of the Engineer, the report of the Chief Town Planner and the proceedings of the Panchayat, where also it is mentioned that the width of the road is less than 5 meters. 2. However, a reading of Ext.P1, the proceedings of the 2nd respondent shows that it was taking into account that the area is a developed area where two similar industrial units are already functioning, that license was directed to be granted to the petitioner, in spite of the fact that the access road is having an WPC.No.3552/2010 :2 : average width of 3 meters. The proviso to Rule 57(5) shows that in all existing developed areas other than industrial areas where small scale industrial units are permissible, minimum width of approach road shall not be less than 3 meters. From Exts.P2,P3 and P4 itself it is obvious that the access road is having average width of 2 meters. This has been taken note of in Ext.P1 proceedings of the 2nd respondent also. 3. Therefore, it is evident that the 2nd respondent took its decision giving the first respondent the benefit of proviso to Rule 57(5) of the Kerala Municipality Building Rules and if that be so the decision of the 2nd respondent cannot be faulted. Therefore challenge against Ext.P1 has to fail. 4. However, counsel for the petitioners submits that while granting consent, Ext.P5 office order issued by the Pollution Control Board has not been taken into account. If the petitioners have such a grievance it is up to the petitioners to pursue their grievance against Ext.R1(a) consent granted by the Pollution Control Board in favour of the first respondent. Therefore, the writ petition is closed. vi (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE WPC.No.3552/2010 :3 : vi/