IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE TUESDAY, THE 25TH MARCH 2008 / 5TH CHAITHRA 1930 WP(C).No. 9021 of 2008(Y) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- M/S. MALAYAKAM AGGREGATES & SANDS (P)LTD, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, MRS. ANNIE SANY, MALAYAKAM ESTATE, CHAZHIYATTIRI P.O., PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.ELVIN PETER P.J. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THIRUMITTAKKODE GRAMA PANCHAYAT, CHATHANNOOR P.O., PIN-679 537, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE SECRETARY, THIRUMITTAKKODE GRAMA PANCHAYAT, CHATHANNOOR P.O., PIN-679 537, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI.T.A.RAJAGOPALAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/03/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, J. ----------------------------------------------- W.P.(C)No.9021 OF 2008 ----------------------------------------------- Dated this the 25th day of March, 2008 J U D G M E N T Sri.T.A.Rajagopalan enters appearance for the Panchayat and the second respondent Secretary of the Panchayat has filed a detailed counter affidavit also. In this writ petition wherein the petitioner challenges Ext.P17 order of the Panchayat declining the petitioner's request that the licence be granted by the Panchayat to the petitioner for conducting a granite quarry and metal crusher unit for the year 2008-09. In fact previously licence had been issued to first defendant M/s. Malayakam Granites, a partnership firm from whom only the petitioner company M/s, Malayakam Aggregates and Sands (P) Ltd. got clear interest in the industry. Very extensive arguments were addressed by Sri.Elvin Peter P.J., learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Elvin's submissions were resisted by Mr.Rajagopalan, learned counsel for the Panchayat. My attention was drawn by Mr.Elvin to the various documents produced by the petitioner which will show that almost all statutory required permits and licences for conducting the quarry except the licence from the local authority is already available with the petitioner. The only reason stated in Ext.P17 by the Panchayat is that a suit O.S.18/04 is pending before the Munsiff's WP(C)N0. -2- Court, Pattambi and that legal advice was received by the Panchayat to the effect that since the matter is sub judice granting the petitioner's request will be improper. I am of the view that the advice received by the petitioner was not correct. Ext.P16 judgment of this court in a proceeding under Article 227 of the Constitution relating to an application for temporary injunction sought for in the said suit has not been considered by the legal officer of the Panchayat or by the Panchayat. Under Ext.P16 this court has held that quarry should be allowed to operate even during the pendency of the suit otherwise the injury which will be occasioned to the entreprenuer if ultimately he succeeds in the suit will be irreparable. Mr. Rajagopalan pointed out that Ext.P17 is appealable to the Tribunal for Local Self Government Department and the petitioner is not justified in approaching this court without exhausting their statutory appellate remedy. The above submission of Mr.Rajagopalan is without merit. But the same time in view of the finality attained by Ext.P16 it is necessary that the petitioner should be permitted to operate quarry subject to the decision by the Tribunal in the prospective appeal. Under the above circumstances I dispose of the writ petition relegating the petitioner to the Tribunal for Local Self WP(C)N0. -3- Government Department. If the petitioner prefers an appeal against Ext.P17 before the Tribunal for Local Self Government Department within 20 days from today the Tribunal will entertain the appeal and dispose of the same in accordance with law. In that appeal the petitioner shall make the plaintiffs in the suit also as parties. Considering Ext.P16 I direct the Panchayat to consider and take a decision on the petitioner's request for granting licence for conducting granite quarry and metal crusher unit for the year 2008-09 without being influenced by the pendency of the suit before the Munsiff's Court. If other statutory requirements are satisfied licence will be issued so as to enable the petitioner to conduct the quarry subject to the result of the suit. (PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE) KSV/ WP(C)N0. -4-