Puthupally Grama Panchayat-4th respondent in this writ petition had issued Ext.P5 on 09-05-2003 in favour of the Associate Banks Officers Association Education Trust, Kottayam (herein after referred to as the Trust) a building permit, where under the Trust was authorised to put up buildings in Sy.No. 37/4 of Puthupally Village. According to the petitioner, who is the proprietor of M/s/ Vazhathara Metals and Granite products, this was illegal and irregular and he submits that such proceedings are liable to be quashed. The petitioner has also prayed for further relief’s of setting aside Ext. P6, Proceedings of the Chief Town Planner dated 04-03-2003 issued by the Kerala State Pollution Control Board, which are documents referred to in Ext.P5 permit.

2. The Chief Town Planner, by Ext.P6, had approved the lay out for construction of the school building in the above said premises, on condition that No objection certificate from the Pollution Control Board was to be obtained. The Pollution Control Board, by Ext.P7, had issued such NOC for the proposed school building. The report of the Pollution Control Board refers to the existence of the petitioner's unit which is a metal crushing factory. Attention has been also drawn to the possibility of pollution, and necessity for remedial measures to be taken.

3. According to the petitioner, the building permit has been obtained with mala fide motive to prejudice the petitioner, and the grant is irregular, in that the petitioner was not heard before such orders have been passed. This is particularly because of the reason that the application filed by the Trust, a few years back, had been rejected by the Grama Panchayat, since the Chief Town Planner had not approved the lay out presented before him by the school management. It is further stated that the above proceedings, a copy of which is produced as Ext.P1, had been subjected to challenge by the Trust, by filling of an Original Petition (O.P.No. 2197/98), which is yet to be disposed of by this Court, and taking note of the objections of the petitioner, he is impleaded as a respondent there. Therefore, the petitioner has been taken by surprise, by working up a project behind his back. This was unethical.

4. Apart from this preliminary objection, Sri.K.M. Joseph, counsel for the petitioner, submitted that while issuing Exts.P5 to P7, the relevant aspects had been refused to be adverted to by the respondents concerned. The quarry run by the petitioner, which consisted of crusher units as well, functioning in the adjacent plot of the proposed school building will be hazardous to the interest of the school children, if such permission became materialized in concrete. According to him, the Trust was attempting to create impediments in the matter of functioning of a small scale industrial unit and thereby attempting to drive the petitioner out from the property and the business in which he has been engaged for almost three decades. Pains are taken to point out that it was not as it was not as if the school authorities had no other premises in the area. The insistence to put up a school building in a property adjacent to the quarry was because of only mala fide motive. The authorities could have been appraised of these relevant aspects, if an opportunity had been given to him to state his objections, and in public interest. Mr. Joseph was frank in conceding that the writ petition had been filed in private interest, but also in ultimate public interest.

5. A counter affidavit has been filed by the 5th respondent-Trust. Sri. Gopalakrishna Kurup, appearing for the respondent, submits that the original petition as constituted is mischievous and in any case not maintainable. According to him, the petitioner has no locus standi in the matter at all. The argument is that the petitioner cannot have any unqualified right to conduct a quarry and crusher unit and whatever rights he may have will be subject to statutory prescriptions and subject to