IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND NOVEMBER 2011 / 11TH KARTHIKA 1933 WP(C).No. 13364 of 2006(N) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- BINDU SAJI, W/O.SAJI, THEKKEKKARA HOUSE, PROPRIETOR, M/S.MATHA RUBBER PRODUCTS, MUDIYAKKAL MEENADAM.P.O, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.MATHEW JOHN (K) SRI.SUJESH MENON RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. MEENADAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MEENADAM.P.O, KOTTAYAM. 2. THE PRESIDENT, MEENADAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH, MEENADAM.P.O, KOTTAYAM. 3. RAMANI SASIDHARAN, PRESIDENT, MEENADAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH, MEENADAM.P.O, KOTTAYAM. R1 BY ADV. SRI.JOSE PALLATTUKARAN R2 & R3 BY ADV.SRI. K.J.VINCENT THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: svs W.P.(C). NO. 13364/2006 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE BROCHURE RELATING TO THE SCHEME. P2: COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 18/07/2005. P3: COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE PROVISIONAL REGISTRATION. P4: COPY OF THE LICENCE ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY DATED 05/08/2005. P5: COPY OF THE CONSENT ALONG WITH THE SITE PLAN DATED 13/09/2005. P6: COPY OF THE LICENCE DATED 11/11/2005 ISSUED BY THE RUBBER BOARD. P7: COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 05/12/2005 BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. P8: COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE CONSENT ISSUED BY K.S.P.C.B. DATED 20/12/2005. P9: COPY OF THE STOP MEMO ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY DATED 30/12/2005. P10: COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 22/01/2006. P11: COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 28/02/2006. P12: COPY OF THE LICENCE DATED 20/03/2006 RENEWED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. P13: COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 04/05/2006. P14: COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS FOR ISSUING STOP MEMO DATED 16/05/2006. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE. svs S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W.P(C) No. 13364 of 2006 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 2nd day of November, 2011. J U D G M E N T The petitioner is running a small scale industrial unit manufacturing rubber bands within the jurisdiction of the 1st respondent-Panchayat. According to the petitioner, the petitioner is running the unit with all statutory licenses and permits. By Ext.P9, the Panchayat issued a stop memo in view of certain complaints in respect of the unit. Thereafter, on production of a no-objection certificate from the District Medical Officer, by Ext.P11, the Panchayat unanimously resolved to withdraw the stop memo. But, again, by Ext.P13, the Panchayat adopted a resolution with the dissenting note of the Secretary to issue a stop memo again. Ext.P13 resolution was adopted by a casting vote issued by the President, since the members for and against were equal. Pursuant thereto, by Ext.P14, the President of the Panchayat issued Ext.P14 stop memo. The petitioner is challenging Exts. P13 and P14. 2. According to the petitioner, the petitioner has complied with every statutory requirements as evident from Exts. P1 to P8 and therefore there is absolutely no reason for issuing the stop memo. The petitioner alleges that this is a politically motivated action as is clear from the fact that the Panchayat was equally divided on the question and the Secretary of the Panchayat had also objected to the same. The petitioner therefore seeks the following reliefs: W.P(C) No. 13364 of 2006 -: 2 :- “i. call for the records leading up to Ext.P14 and to issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, direction or order quashing Exts. 13 and P14; ii. issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order commanding respondents 1 and 2 not to interfere with the running of the petitioner's industrial unit covered by Ext.P12 licence.” 3. A counter affidavit has been filed filed by respondents 1, 2 and 3 taking the stand that it is because the petitioner has violated the conditions of the licenses and permits that the stop memo was issued. 4. Counsel on both sides are absent. 5. I have considered the contentions of the parties as evident from the pleadings. 6. This Court had passed an interim order suspending Exts. P14 on 23.5.2006. Ext.P13 does not state as to what are the violations alleged against the petitioner. In fact, the Secretary has registered a dissent stating that the Panchayat has not received any complaint after the licence was issued with the no objection certificate from the DMO and therefore only after obtaining reports from the Pollution Control Board and the District Medical Officer as to whether there is any violation, further proceedings shall be taken. I am also of opinion that, insofar as the petitioner's is a running industry, the Panchayat cannot, without obtaining appropriate reports from the appropriate expert bodies competent to decide the matter as to W.P(C) No. 13364 of 2006 -: 3 :- whether there is any violation, issue a stop memo all on a sudden. The petitioner should also be given an opportunity to explain the allegations of violation. 7. In the above circumstances, Exts. P13 and P14 are quashed. However, I make it clear that this will not stand in the way of respondents 1 and 2 taking further action, after obtaining reports from the Pollution Control Board and the District Medical Officer regarding any alleged violations, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. The writ petition disposed of as above. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/