IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 15TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 26TH MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 8103 of 2007(M) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- K.M.AISHA, W/O.LATE ALI,KARAPPAM VEETTIL KANDANISSERY P.O., ARIYANNOOR VIA, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.P.ASHOK KUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- THE KANDANNISSERY GRAMA PANCHAYAT , MATTOM P.O.,THRISSUR DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. ADV. SRI.P.RAMACHANDRAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) No.8103 of 2007 (M) --------------------------------- Dated, this the 15th day of February, 2010 J U D G M E N T Challenge in the writ petition is against Ext.P7. 2. Ext.P7 is an order passed by the respondent Panchayat on an appeal filed by the petitioner, requiring the petitioner to produce consent issued by the Pollution Control Board for issuing licence pursuant to Ext.P4 application made by the petitioner. 3. The petitioner is running a SSI unit. The Unit did not have licence issued by the Panchayat. She made Ext.P4 application. During the pendency of the application, the Panchayat issued Ext.P5 stop memo requiring the petitioner to stop further work in the industrial unit for want of licence issued by it. That order was challenged before this Court and by Ext.P6 judgment, the petitioner was relegated to pursue appellate remedy before the Panchayat. Accordingly the petitioner filed an appeal and Ext.P7 order was passed on the appeal. 4. A reading of Ext.P7 shows that the Panchayat has WP(C) No.8103/2007 -2- expressed its willingness to issue licence, on the production of consent order issued by the Pollution Control Board. 5. In my view, no fault can be found on the part of the Panchayat in having asked the petitioner to produce consent order from the Pollution Control Board, which is a statutory requirement, and since a complaint was also made by a neighbour that the industry is causing pollution to the area. That apart, from Ext.P7 itself, it is evident that proceedings were initiated on the complaint made by the neighbour mentioned therein, who is not made a party to this writ petition. 6. Another contention raised by the petitioner is that licence is not required to be obtained, as according to the petitioner, this was not an area which was notified by the Panchayat as per Section 232 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act. In my view, it is not open to the petitioner to raise this plea primarily for the reason that it was on the application made by the petitioner for licence that Ext.P7 order has been issued. Having regard to all the above, I see no merit in the contentions raised. However, having regard to the fact that the WP(C) No.8103/2007 -3- petitioner is running the industrial unit on the basis of the interim orders passed by this Court, it is directed that if the petitioner obtains and produces consent order as required in Ext.P7 within one months from today, orders will be passed on her application for licence, and that in the meanwhile, interim order passed by this Court will remain in force. This writ petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg