IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR.P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 21ST MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 2688 of 2010(S) ----------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------ M.K.BINOY, S/O. M.K.KRISHNAN, AGED 39 YEARS, MENACKAL HOUSE, MEVALLOOR P.O., VELLOOR, VAIKOM TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE SEBASTIAN SRI.EGY.N.ELIAS RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. VELLOOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, VELLOOR, VAIKOM TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 2. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN-686609. 3. TAHSILDAR, VAIKOM, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN-686609. 4. R.D.O., PALA, KOTTAYAM. 5. DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KOTTAYAM. 6. DY.S.P., PALA, VELLOOR, KOTTAYAM DIST. 7. C.I. OF POLICE, KADUTHURUTHY, VELLOOR, KOTTAYAM DIST., 686609. 8. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VELLOOR, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, 686609. 9. THE GEOLOGIST, OFFICE OF MINING AND GEOLOGY, KOTTAYAM-686609. 10. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, VELLOOR, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN-686609.. WP(C) NO.2688 OF 2010 - 2 - 11. SAJITH KUMAR, KRISHNAMANDIRAM, VADAKARA, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN-686609. 12. SATYAVRATHAN, PAYYAPPILLIL, VARIKKAMKUNNU, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN-686609. 13. P.U.JAMES, PARUTHIKKATTU VAIPPEL, VELLOOR, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN-686609. 14. GOPAKUMAR, MUKKATHU HOUSE, MEVALLOOR, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN-686609. 15. M.K.PRAKASAN, MOOTHEDATH HOUSE, MEVALLOOR, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN-686609. 16. M.K.NANDAKUMAR, MANAGING PARTNER, QUALITY CONSTRUCTION AND BUILDING BLOCK, VELLOOR, PIN-686609. 17. ELIAS, MADAKKATTU PUNCHAYIL, EDAVATTOM, KULASEKHARAMANGALAM VILLAGE, PIN-686609. 18. T.K.SABU, THOTTATHIL, MEVALLOOR, VELLOOR, KOTTAYAM DIST., PIN-686609. 19. N.V.PRASAD, NECHATHIL, MARAVANTHURUTH, VELLOOR, KOTTAYAM DIST., PIN-686609. 20. THANKACHAN, PARAMPADIYIL, VARIKKAMKUNNU, VELLOOR, KOTTAYAM DIST. PIN-686609. 21. THE KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT OFFICE, REPRESENTED BY ITS ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER. 22. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATHS, KOTTAYAM. R1 BY ADV.SRI.RAJESH THOMAS R2 TO R10 & R22 BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.K.MEERA ADV. SRI.J.JULIAN XAVIER FOR R11 SRI.FIROZ K.ROBIN FOR R11 SRI.P.P.JACOB FOR R13-16 & 20 SRI.V.PHILIP MATHEW FOR R-18 R21 BY STANDING COUNSEL SRI.M.K.CHANDRAMOHAN DAS THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.2688 OF 2010 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 20.3.2009 ISSUED BY 10TH RESPONDENT EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 7.11.2009 ISSUED BY THE 21ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE EXTRACT OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COMMITTEE OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT HELD ON 19.11.2009 EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 6.5.2009 ISSUED BY THE ADDL. TAHSILDAR, VAIKOM EXT.P5 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER DATED 31.7.2009 EXT.P6 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 2.1.2010 BY THE 10TH RESPONDENT TO THE 16TH RESPONDENT EXT.P7 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 2.1.2010 BY THE 10TH RESPONDET TO THE 17TH RESPONDENT EXT.P8 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 2.1.2010 BY THE 10TH RESPONDENT TO THE 19TH RESPONDENT EXT.P9 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 2.1.2010 BY THE 10TH RESPONDENT TO THE 20TH RESPONDENT EXT.P10 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 31.12.2009 BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE 12TH RESPONDENT EXT.P11 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 31.12.2009 BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE 15TH RESPONDENT EXT.P12 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 31.12.2009 BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE 16TH RESPONDENT EXT.P13 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 31.12.2009 BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE 14TH RESPONDENT EXT.P14 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 31.12.2009 BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE 17TH RESPONDENT EXT.P15 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 23.12.2009 BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE 13TH RESPONDENT EXT.P16 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 23.12.2009 BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE 20TH RESPONDENT EXT.P17 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 23.12.2009 BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE 19TH RESPONDENT EXT.P18 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 30.12.2009 MADE BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE 8TH RESPONDENT W.P.(C) NO.2688 OF 2010 - 2 - EXT.P19 TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST DATED 6.1.2010 MADE BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE 8TH RESPONDENT EXT.P20 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 20.1.2010 MADE BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXT.P21 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 20.1.2010 MADE BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 5TH RESPONDENT EXT.P22 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 20.1.2010 MADE BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 22ND RESPONDENT RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: EXT.R11(A) TRUE COPY OF THE CONSENT TO OPERATE THE WIRE CUT BRICK UNIT ISSUED BY THE KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD EXT.R11(B) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOTTAYAM EXT.R11(C) TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE GEOLOGIST, DEPARTMENT OF MINING AND GEOLOGY, KOTTAYAM EXT.R11(D) TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BEFORE THE VELLOOR GRAMA PANCHAYAT FOR RENEWING THE LICENCE / TRUE COPY / P.R.Raman, Ag. C.J. & Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J. ------------------------------------------ W.P.(C) No.2688 of 2010 ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 10th day of February, 2010 JUDGMENT P.R.Raman, Ag. C.J. Petitioner is an individual residing within the area of the first respondent Grama Panchayat with his family. He styled himself as a public spirited citizen. The grievance raised in this writ petition is that there are about 11 brick manufacturing units in the first respondent Panchayat, most of which are functioning in paddy fields excavating clay from the paddy fields and mixing the same with ordinary earth. It is stated that the Grama Panchayat had taken a decision that licence to run brick manufacturing unit within the territory of the first respondent Panchayat would be granted only if the applicant for licence produces no objection certificate and permission from the statutory authorities and after getting consent from the people residing within 250 metres of the proposed unit. Ext.P3 is stated to be the relevant extract of the minutes of the meeting of the Grama Panchayat held on 19.11.2009. It is also stated that the Additional Tahsildar, Vaikom had issued orders W.P.(C) No.2688 of 2010 - 2 - to the first respondent Panchayat detailing as to how it has to deal with the application for licence. It is further stated that since it involves conversion of paddy fields, the provisions contained in the Kerala Land Utilisation Order and also the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008 will be applied. It is also stated that orders have been issued by the revenue authorities evidenced by Exts.P6 to P9, stopping the brick manufacturing activities until a decision is taken. The complaint of the petitioner is that despite such orders, the authorities are not taking appropriate action. There is yet another complaint that Exts.P10 to P17 are other orders of like nature issued by the Panchayat and the Panchayat itself has requested the authorities for enforcement of the orders passed. But according to the petitioner, except in paper, those orders are not implemented. Hence he prays for a writ of mandamus to be issued by this Court not to grant licences and permissions to respondents 11 to 20 under Sections 232 and 233 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act and also for a direction to respondents 1 to 10, 21 and 22 to see that Exts.P6 to P17 are implemented strictly and take appropriate action and finally for a writ W.P.(C) No.2688 of 2010 - 3 - of mandamus to respondents 1 to 10, 21 and 22 to see that the functioning of brick manufacturing units by respondents 11 to 20 is stopped at the earliest. 2. Though a counter affidavit is filed by the 11th respondent and the other respondents are yet to file their counter affidavits and seek time for filing such counter affidavits, in the view we are taking it is not necessary for us to enter into any finding regarding the alleged facts stated in the writ petition. 3. So long as there are orders issued by the revenue authorities stopping the brick manufacturing activities, if a complaint is made to them alleging any violation, certainly it is for the revenue authorities to take action in accordance with law after hearing all affected parties. Likewise, whether or not a licence has to be granted to any brick manufacturing unit is a matter that is to be considered by the Panchayat. This Court cannot issue a writ of mandamus prohibiting the Panchayat not to give any such licence. Secondly, if the Panchayat has issued orders stopping the brick manufacturing units only because no licence has been granted or W.P.(C) No.2688 of 2010 - 4 - there is any violation of the conditions of the licence, there are sufficient provisions under the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act enabling them to move the appropriate authorities for taking action. We need not execute the orders issued by the Panchayat. If the Panchayat could not implement its order and there is any inaction on the part of the said authorities, certainly it is open to the Panchayat to come to this Court as against any such inaction, whereupon this Court may consider such contention in the appropriate petition, if any, filed. All that we say is that at this stage of the proceeding we cannot enter a finding on the disputed orders passed by the authorities. If there is any violation, that is a matter at the first instance to be considered by the concerned authorities who have issued the orders. 4. As far as the affected persons who are indulged in the activity of brick manufacturing is concerned, it is certainly open to them to apply to the respective authorities, whereupon the respective authorities will have necessarily to consider the application in accordance with the provisions governing the same and, therefore, the orders stopping the activities of the brick manufacturing units, at this W.P.(C) No.2688 of 2010 - 5 - stage, shall not adversely affect their right to move the authorities to get sanction in accordance with law. 5. In the result, we direct that in case any complaint of violation of any order competently passed by the appropriate authority under the provisions contained in the Kerala Land Utilisation Order and also under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008, is made by the petitioner, that authority will consider his complaint after hearing all the parties and pass appropriate orders in this regard. In case, there is any inaction on the part of the first respondent Panchayat in taking further action, it is open to the petitioner to approach the Ombudsman for Local Self Government Institutions. Writ petition is disposed of as above. P.R.Raman, Ag. Chief Justice Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, Judge vns