The main legal point established is that the District Medical Officer of Health had no jurisdiction to interfere with the grant or cancellation of factory licenses, as this authority solely rested with the Executive Authority under the Kerala Panchayats Rules.

Bhat. Ag.CJ.

This appeal is directed against the dismissal of O.P. No. 6131 of 1986. The O.P. was disposed of along with S.A. No. 649 of 1986

2. The parties are referred to by their ranking in the appeal. The third respondent is a factory engaging metal crusher for producing metals of different sizes by crushing granite. The factory was established in 1978. Poulose, the then Managing Partner, left the firm in 1979, and started a similar factory within a distance of five K Ms. There were mass petitions allegedly inspired by the retiring Managing Partner, before the Nedumbasserry Panchayat, as well as the District Medical Officer, Health, and Collector complaining of nuisance because of the activities in the factory causing sound pollution due to vibration as well as pollution by dust to the residents in the area. The District Medical Officer inspected the site and by Ext. P5 letter dated 21-12-1986 directed the Executive Officer of the Nedumbassery Panchayat to cancel the licence issued to the factory for running a crusher and to take steps to stop the functioning of the factory immediately. This direction was issued on the basis of the information of the District Medical Officer, Health, that there are four houses within a radius of 100 metres of the factory, a public well in the distance of 5.80 metres, that the water poured at the time of crushing was inadequate, and at the lime of functioning of the crusher vibrations are to the nearby buildings, and that it causes air pollution. The appellant requested the Executive Officer of the Panchayat to implement the direction in Ext. P5. The Executive Officer by Ext. P6 letter declined to do so. By Ext. P7 letter, the first respondent, Taluk Panchayat Officer, declined to direct the Executive Officer to enforce Ext. P5 direction. Thereupon the appellant filed O.P. No. 6131 of 1986 seeking a writ of certiorari quashing Exts. P6 and P7 and seeking a writ of mandamus directing respondents land 2 to cancel the licence granted to the third respondent, and to forbear from issuing any licence in future to the third respondent, and other reliefs. The Writ Petition was opposed by respondents 1 to 3.

3. On 21-10-1980, one Chacko Varghese filed a suit for injunction restraining the owner of the factory from running it on the ground that there is a health hazard on account of sound and dust pollution. Relief was claimed against the Panchayat also seeking to compel it to enforce its statutory duty of cancelling the licence. The trial court decreed the suit. The appeal filed by the owner of the factory was allowed on 23-11-1981. Meanwhile the Panchayat directed the Executive Officer to renew the licence. Chacko Varghese filed O.P. No. 285 of 1982 in this Court seeking to quash the renewed licence. The Writ Petition was allowed, and the order of the Panchayat was quashed with a direction to reconsider the matter after hearing Chacko Varghese. The Panchayat subsequently directed renewal of the licence.

4. The trial court in the suit held that there was no sound pollution, but found that there was dust pollution, and granted a decree on condition that if the owner of the factory would introduce a device to abate the dust pollution, the licence of the factory could be renewed. Chacko Varghese being aggrieved by the decree filed appeal AS. No. 217 of 1982. The appellate court modified the decree to some extent directing the third respondent to provide water connection at the mouth of the crusher with a shower nozzle with provision to open the same and shower water at the mouth of the crusher easily by providing a tap, which can be operated standing on the ground. The appellate court also agreed that there was no risk of sound pollution. Against this judgment the plaintiff filed S. A. No. 649 of 1986 which has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge by the common judgment already referred to.

5. We are concerned in this case with the legality of Ext. P5 direction issued by the District Medic