IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR MONDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF JANUARY 2011/20TH PAUSHA 1932 WP(C).No. 25243 of 2004 (E) --------------------------- PETITIONER: ---------- DR. ABDUL RAHIMAN POILAN, S/O. P.V.A. HAMEED HAJEE, `POILANS', PAYANCHERI, IRITTY. BY ADVS.SRI.K.V.PAVITHRAN SRI.SHEJI P.ABRAHAM RESPONDENT(S): -------------- 1. THE CHAIRMAN (DISTRICT COLLECTOR) GREEN CHANNEL CLEARANCE COMMITTEE, P.O. KANNUR. 2. THE GENERAL MANAGER, DISTRICT INDUSTRIES CENTRE, KANNUR. 3. THE SPECIAL GRADE SECRETARY, KEEZHUR CHAVASSERI PANCHAYAT, P.O. PUNNAD. 4. SRI. K.V. DAMENIC, KALLADA HOUSE, PAYANCHERIMUKKU, IRITTY P.O. R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.R.REMESH R3 BY ADV. SRI.V.M.KURIAN BY ADV. SRI.A.V.THOMAS BY ADV. SRI.MATHEW B. KURIAN BY ADV. SRI.K.T.THOMAS BY ADV. SMT.TULASI PANICKER R4 BY ADV. SRI.C.P.PEETHAMBARAN BY ADV. SMT.R.DYANA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10-01-2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: VK WP(C).No. 25243 of 2004 (E) --------------------------- APPENDIX -------- PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS --------------------- EXT.P1. COPY OF THE LETTER DT. 16.7.03 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE SECRETARY, IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT. EXT.P2. COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BEFORE THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR DT. 22.6.02. EXT.P3. COPY OF THE ORDER OF GREEN CHANNEL COMMITTEE. EXT.P4. COPY OF THE LETTER DT. 6.8.04 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P5. COPY OF THE CAVEAT FILED BEFORE THE MUNSIFF COURT, KUTHUPARAMBA. EXT.P6. DO. EXT.P7. COPY OF THE LETTER DT. 6.5.04 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P8. COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS : --------------------- EXT.R4(A). COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 19.1.04 EXT.R4(B). COPY OF TE APPLICATION DATED 24.12.2004 SUBMITTED BY THE RESPONDENT BEFORE THE PANCHAYATH EXT.R4(C). COPY OF THE MINUTES DATED 30.1.2004 OF THE PANCHAYATH. EXT.R4(D). COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 7.4.2004 TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.R4(E). COPY OF THE VARIATION ORDER ISSUED BY THE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD. / TRUE COPY / P.A. TO JUDGE VK C.T.RAVIKUMAR, J. ---------------------------- W.P.(C)No.25243 of 2004 ---------------------------- Dated 10th January, 2011 JUDGMENT The fourth respondent herein submitted an application before the Keezhur Chavasseri Panchayat for a licence for establishing an industrial unit of wood plaining using electricity. In fact, Ext.R4(a) is the receipt issued in token of receipt of the requisite installation fee for the purpose of installing a 3.5 H.P. motor for conducting the aforesaid industrial unit. The said application was submitted in terms of the provisions under Rule 12 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj (Issue of Licence to Dangerous and Offensive Trades and Factories) Rules, 1996 (for short `the Rules'). Rule 12(3) of the Rules enjoins that licence shall either be granted or rejected within 45 days from the date of receipt of such an application. Rule 12(3)(c) carries a deeming provision. It reads thus:- “Where the application has not been disposed of within the specified time, licence shall be deemed to have been issued.” Since no orders have been passed on his application within the time stipulated under Rule 12(3) of the Rules the fourth respondent has started the industrial unit. Thereupon, the petitioner who is a neighbouring land owner wherein the fourth respondent started the above industrial unit, WP(C).No.25243/2004 2 filed a complaint before the Panchayat. Later, the Panchayat committee constituted a sub-committee for the purpose of reconsidering the grant of permit already issued to the fourth respondent. As already noticed hereinbefore, in fact, no permit or licence has actually been issued to the fourth respondent. Thereupon, the petitioner has preferred an appeal in terms of Rule 12(4) of the Rules before the Green Channel Clearance Committee. The committee after consideration of all the issues, passed Ext.P3 order directing the third respondent to issue licence to the fourth respondent to set up a welding unit namely, New Royal Industries with a 7.5 H.P. motor. it is challenging the aforesaid order that this writ petition has been filed. 2. The contention of the petitioner is that the Green Channel Clearance Committee have failed to call for the records and perused the same before passing Ext.P3 order. It is further contended that on account of the objections raised by the petitioner and others in the locality the first respondent was bound to conduct an enquiry whether the industrial unit would cause or causing any pollution or nuisance. It is submitted that being a person adversely affected by the issuance of licence in favour of the fourth respondent the petitioner should have WP(C).No.25243/2004 3 been afforded with an opportunity of being heard prior to the passing of Ext.P3. 3. A counter affidavit has been filed in this writ petition by the fourth respondent. It is stated thereunder that though as per Ext.P3 permission was granted to install a 7.5 H.P. motor he had installed only a 3.5 H.P. electric motor. Further, it is stated thereunder that the Pollution Control Board has conducted a site inspection and granted a `No Objection Certificate' on 17.8.2004. It is specifically stated thereunder that after obtaining Ext.P3 order from the Green Channel Clearance Committee and obtaining clearance from the Pollution Control Board, the fourth respondent has started the industry as early as in the year 2004. Before approaching this Court by filing this writ petition one of the objectors of the starting of the industrial unit by the fourth respondent has unsuccessfully approached the Munsiff's Court, Kuthuparamba by filing O.S.No.298 of 2003. That was dismissed. It was thereafter that this writ petition has been filed by the petitioner. 4. Though the petitioner is assailing Ext.P3 order of the Green Channel Clearance committee, no ground had been made out WP(C).No.25243/2004 4 warranting interference with Ext.P3. Evidently, the Pollution Control Board had conducted a site inspection and on 17.8.2004 granted `No Objection Certificate'. It is to be noted that though the third respondent was directed to issue licence to the fourth respondent to start the industrial unit with a 7.5 H.P. motor admittedly the fourth respondent has started the said industry only with a 3.5 H.P. electric motor. The specific contention made in the counter affidavit of the fourth respondent regarding the site inspection and issuance of `No Objection Certificate' by the Pollution Control Board remains undisputed. Therefore, there is nothing on record which would suggest that functioning of the industry would have any hazardous impact. That apart, admittedly, from 2004 onwards the fourth respondent has been conducting the industry based on the permit granted pursuant to Ext.P3. Merely because the petitioner was not afforded with an opportunity of being heard, Ext.P3 cannot be interfered with in the absence of any material to show that the fourth respondent had started the industrial unit in question in violation of the mandatory, statutory provisions. Admittedly, pursuant to Ext.P3 the Panchayat has issued necessary licence and the Pollution Control Board has also issued the No Objection Certificate. For all these reasons, I am of the view that there is no ground to interfere with the proceedings and WP(C).No.25243/2004 5 to interdict the fourth respondent from conducting the industrial unit in question. This writ petition is bereft of any merit and accordingly, it is dismissed. Sd/- C.T.RAVIKUMAR Judge TKS