IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 5TH JANUARY 2010 / 15TH POUSHA 1931 WP(C).No. 35663 of 2009(C) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- A.J.FOODS, A FIRM REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, VINOD MANJILA, MANJILA HOUSE, NELLIKKUNNU.P.O, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.JIJO PAUL RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE AVANUR GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MEDICAL COLLEGE.P.O, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 2. N.A.VARGHESE, HOUSE NO.V/111-19, AVANUR PANCHAYATH, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 3. N.D.BENNY, HOUSE NO.IX/249, AVANUR PANCHAYATH, THRISSUR DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED FOR R2,3 SRI.M.SAJJAD FOR R2,3 SRI.K.N.PADMAKUMAR FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Writ Petition No.35663/2009 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1 : COPY OF APPLICATION FOR ISSUE OF LICENCE PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER THE RULES DATED 05/06/2009. P2 : COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 23/09/2009 IN WP(C) NO.26603/2009 PASSED BY THIS HONOURABLE COURT. P3 : COPY OF ORDER NO.10/2009 DATED 13/10/2009 ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT PANCHAYAT. P4 : COPY OF REPRESENTATION MADE BY RESPONDETNS 2 & 3 AND OTHERS DATED 14/06/2009. P5 : COPY OF CONSENT NO.PCB/DO/TSR/CE/307/2009 DATED 21/10/2009 ISSUED BY THE KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD. P6 : COPY OF COMMUNICATION NO.C6-8282/09/D.M.O. DATED 05/07/2009 ISSUED BY THE DMO, THRISSUR. // TRUE COPY // PA TO JUDGE. jg ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------ WP(C) No.35663 of 2009(C) -------------------------- Dated, this the 5th day of January, 2010 J U D G M E N T Ext.P1 is an application made by the petitioner to the 1st respondent Panchayat for permission to set up a factory. The purpose of the licence is to store, pack and sell, Rava, Aatta, Oats and Rice Powder. The application was considered and by Ext.P3 order dated 13/10/2009, the same was rejected. 2. There are three reasons stated in Ext.P3 order. First is that No Objection Certificate from the District Medical Officer has not been obtained. Second reason stated is that the certificate of the Pollution Control Board has not been obtained, and the third reason stated is that the residents in the neighbourhood have complained against the proposal of the petitioner. Contentions raised by the petitioner are mainly that subsequent to Ext.P3, he has obtained Ext.P5, consent from the Pollution Control Board. It is stated that now that Ext.P5 consent has been obtained, the requirement of No Objection Certificate from the District Medical Officer, is no longer there in view of the proviso to Section 233(4)(c) WP(C) No.35663/2009 -2- of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act. Therefore, according to the petitioner, objection Nos.1 & 2 no longer survive. In so far as the 3rd objection that the residents in the neighbourhood have complained against the proposal is concerned, the petitioner contends that Ext.P4 is the complaint filed before the Panchayat. According to the petitioner, the only apprehension of the neighbouring residents as disclosed in Ext.P4 is that after obtaining licence for the purposes mentioned above, the petitioner is proposing to manufacture pickle and other food items in the establishment and as a result thereof, pollution will be caused. The petitioner submits that he has no proposal to establish a pickle manufacturing unit and that his proposal is to confine his activities within the purposes mentioned in Ext.P1 application. 3. The Panchayat submits that apart from Ext.P4, there are other complaints as well. It is also pointed out that Ext.P5 was not available before the Panchayat when the application was considered. The party respondents, on the other hand, submits that the petitioner has another existing establishment in the immediate vicinity itself, which is creating pollution, and therefore, if another Unit is allowed to be established, there will be further pollution. WP(C) No.35663/2009 -3- 4. As already seen, there are three reasons stated in Ext.P3 order rejecting the petitioner's application. Prima facie, reason Nos.1 & 2 do not survive any longer in view of Ext.P5 and the provisions contained in the proviso to Section 233(4)(c) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act. If Ext.P4 is the only objection received from the neighbouring residents that also is addressed by the undertaking of the petitioner that he will be confining his activities to what are mentioned at serial No.4 of Ext.P1 application. In view of the facts as stated above, this is a case where the matter needs to be reconsidered by the Panchayat. Therefore, I quash Ext.P3 and direct the Panchayat to reconsider the matter taking into account the aforesaid facts and also Ext.P5 and the statutory provisions noticed above. This shall be done with notice to the petitioner as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within four weeks of production of a copy of this judgment. This writ petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg