IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.J.CHELAMESWAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON TUESDAY, THE 11TH JANUARY 2011 / 21ST POUSHA 1932 Con.Case(C).No. 614 of 2010(S) ------------------------------ PETITIONER/PETITIONER: ---------------------------- BABY MATHEW,S/O.MATHAI,PROPRIETOR, M/S.B&M ENGINEERS,DR.NO.5/86B,PULIKKAKUDY HOUSE, PANIPRA.P.O.-IRUMALAPPADY,KOTHAMANGALAM. BY ADV. DR.GEORGE ABRAHAM RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: ---------------------------------- 1. ZAHEER KOTTAPPARAMBIL,(AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER)VICE PRESIDENT AND IN-CHARGE OF PRESIDENT,NELLIKUZHI GRAMA PANCHAYATH NELLIKUZHI.P.O,KOTHAMANGALAM. 2. SMT.NEJUMULUNISA,(AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER)SECRETARY,NELLIKUZHI GRAMA PANCHAYATH,NELLIKUZHI.P.O,KOTHAMANGALAM. R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI.P.K.MUHAMMED THIS CONTEMPT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J.Chelameswar, C.J. & P.R.Ramachandra Menon, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Contempt Case (Civil) No. 614 OF 2010 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 11th day of January, 2011 JUDGMENT Ramachandra Menon, J. The petitioner has preferred this Contempt Case stating that the direction contained in Annexure I order dated 22.04.2010 has not been complied with. The decision taken by the concerned Panchayat is sated as not in conformity with the direction given by this Court as per Annexure H judgment dated 11.03.2010 in W.P.(C) No.9577 of 2009. 2. The sequence of events as narrated in the proceedings is as follows. The petitioner is an industrialist, who is running an SSI unit in the concerned premises and the concerned Panchayat had given necessary licence to the petitioner. However, pursuant to some objections raised by the adjacent residents the Panchayat cancelled the licence issued to the petitioner; which was taken up in appeal. Since it did not turn to be fruitful, the petitioner took up the matter further, by filing a revision petition before the Tribunal for Local Contempt Case (Civil) No. 614 of 2010 -:2:- Self Government Institutions, whereupon the Tribunal passed Annexure C order dated 22.03.2006 directing the Panchayat to reconsider the matter, after obtaining the views of the Pollution Control Board. 3. Though the matter stood finalised as per the order passed by the Tribunal, the Panchayat declined to grant the relief as per Annexure E. This was challenged before the Green Channel Clearance Committee, who considered the matter and passed Annexure F order dated 22.10.2008 whereby licence was ordered to be given to the petitioner. The said order was later annulled by the Deputy Secretary to the Government of Kerala; as per Annexure G order dated 30.12.2008; which in turn was subjected to challenge in W.P. (C) No.9577 of 2009 by the petitioner. It was held by this Court holding that the impugned order was not liable to be sustained. Accordingly, Ext.P16 impugned therein was set aside and the Panchayat was directed to take a fresh decision in the matter, in consistency with the decision of the Tribunal. It was pursuant to the said verdict that the matter was considered by Contempt Case (Civil) No. 614 of 2010 -:3:- the Panchayat and passed Annexure I order, which forms the subject matter in the present Contempt Case. 4. The respondents, on receipt of notice issued by this Court, have filed a counter affidavit dated 30.06.2010, an additional counter affidavit dated 02.09.2010 and yet another additional counter affidavit dated 16.11.2010, explaining the facts and circumstances, also pointing out that no contumacious act has been committed by them. In order to issue licence to the entrepreneurs, various aspect including the consent/NOC of the Pollution Control Board are stated as necessary. Accordingly, the Panchayat decided not to issue any licence to the petitioner. Reliance is also sought to be placed on Annexure R2(B), a report from the Senior Environmental Engineer of the State Pollution Control Board which is produced along with the additional counter affidavit dated 16.11.2010. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Annexure R2(B) issued by the Pollution Control Board is actually in favour of the petitioner and that the decision taken by the Panchayat is contrary to the contents of the said Contempt Case (Civil) No. 614 of 2010 -:4:- document and hence perverse. The learned counsel further submits that the Pollution Control Board had issued clear consent. Later, as borne by 'Annexure D' no reference is made to the same in Annexure I proceedings taken by the Panchayat, while deciding not to issue any licence. 6. After hearing both sides, we find that no specific reference has been made to report of the Pollution Control Board anywhere in Annexure I order. However, it is seen from the said proceeding that, after the issuance of the consent by the Pollution Control Board, a joint inspection was conducted by the Panchayat and the Industries Department on 22.07.08 and it was after considering every aspects, that Annexure I decision was taken by the Panchayat. But, the facts and circumstances with regard to the pollution aspect and the recommendation made by the Board are not specifically referred to in the impugned proceedings. The learned counsel for the respondent Panchayat submits that the matter would be reconsidered by the Panchayat after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and all concerned and that appropriate orders would Contempt Case (Civil) No. 614 of 2010 -:5:- be passed accordingly, in accordance with law. After hearing both sides, we find that, it is fit and proper to close the Contempt Proceedings and give one more opportunity to the Panchayat to consider the case as directed in Annexure H judgment with reference to all relevant aspects including the version of the Pollution Control Board. Accordingly, the Contempt of Court Case is closed giving liberty to the Panchayat to reconsider and finalise the matter as above, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and all others concerned. Appropriate orders shall be passed as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within three months from the date of production of a copy of this order. J.Chelameswar, Chief Justice. P.R.Ramachandra Menon, Judge. ttb Contempt Case (Civil) No. 614 of 2010 -:6:-