IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH JULY 2008 / 25TH ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 21513 of 2008(J) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- MANAKKAPPALLY POURSAMITHI, P.K.V.ROAD, MANAKKAPPALLY, PULLUVAZHI, RAYAMANGALAM PANCHAYATH, KUNNATHUNAD TALUK, ERNAKULAM DT. PIN-683556 REP. BY ITS SECRETARY SHRI.A.AIYYAPPAN. BY ADV. SRI.T.M.RAMAN KARTHA SMT.MANJU R.KARTHA RESPONDENTS: ---------------- 1. RAYAMANGALAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH NELLIMOLAM, RAYAMANGALAM REP. BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. JISMI BABU, W/O.BABU JOHN, NAMMALALIL HOUSE, LIBRARY ROAD, ALUVA. 3. THE DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER, ERNAKULAM. 4. THE CHIEF ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER, KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, KADAVANTHRA, KOCHI-20. BY GOVT.PLEADER SMT.K.R.DEEPA SRI.M.K.CHANDRAMOHAN DAS, SC, PCB THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. =============== W.P.(C) NO. 21513 OF 2008 J ==================== Dated this the 16th day of July, 2008 J U D G M E N T The 2nd respondent made an application before the 1st respondent Panchayat for a licence under Kerala Panchayat Raj (Issue of Licence to Dangerous and Offensive Trades and Factories) Rules, 1996. That application was considered by the Panchayat and by Ext.P7,it was resolved to reject the same only on the ground that there were objections from the residents of the locality. The 2nd respondent challenged Ext.P7 before the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions in Appeal No.139/08. In the appeal, the petitioner got himself impleaded as additional respondent and opposed the prayer of the 2nd respondent. However, by Ext.P8 order, the Tribunal set aside Ext.P7. The reason for such decision was that the Tribunal found that it was merely on account of the objection raised by the neighbouring residents and nothing more that licence was declined. According to the Tribunal, mere protest of some of the local residents is no reason for refusing permit and that it was for the Panchayat to consider the nature of the objections and the sustainability and sufficiency of the same. On that basis, the Tribunal directed that the Panchayat shall take a WPC 21513/08 :2 : fresh and proper decision in accordance with the provisions contained in Section 233 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act. It is this order that is under challenge. 2. True, as contended by the counsel for the petitioner, the Panchayat is entitled to refuse permission if it is of the opinion that establishment of a factory is objectionable by reason of high density of population in the neighbourhood or that it is likely to cause nuisance. However, a reading of Ext.P7 shows that although the Chief Town Planner had approved the lay out, the Pollution Control Board had issued consent to establish, the District Medical Officer, the Fire Force and Inspectorate of Factories and Boilers had granted NOC, still because of the objections raised by the neighbouring residents and without anything more, the Panchayat had resolved to reject the application. The consideration by the Panchayat does not in any manner satisfy the requirements of Rule 12 and it was therefore that the Tribunal rightly interfered in that decision and directed reconsideration. I do not find anything irregular in Ext.P8 order of the Tribunal. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that when the Panchayat reconsiders the matter as directed by the Tribunal, they may WPC 21513/08 :3 : also be directed to be heard by the Panchayat. This request of the petitioner seems to be reasonable. This is particularly for the reason that they were parties to Ext.P8 decision of the Tribunal as well. That apart, since the residents of the locality are objecting to the establishment of the factory in question, it is profitable to hear their views as well. 4. Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of directing that as and when Panchayat reconsiders the matter in pursuance to Ext.P8 order of the Tribunal, the Panchayat shall issue notice to the petitioner also and give them an opportunity to make their representations in this matter. Petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment before the 1st respondent Panchayat for compliance. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp