The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Pollution Control Board and District Medical Officer's certificates cannot override the Panchayat's duties and obligations under the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, in considering applications for licensing dangerous and offensive trades, and the importance of protecting public health and the environment.

K.S. Radhakrishnan. J.

This Petition is filed by the Manjapra Grama Panchayat challenging orders dt. 15.6,1995 passed by the Deputy Director of Panchayats, Ernakulam, and of the Government confirming the same vide order dt. 26.3.1996, directing the Panchayat to issue licence to the fifth respondent to start a metal crusher unit.

2. Fifth respondent is the owner of 57.275 cents of wetland in Sy. No. 359/1/1 of Manjapra Village. She had earlier applied for permission for installing a hollow block manufacturing unit vide application dt. 11.3.1993. Panchayat Committee as per resolution No. 7 dt. 16.3.1993 resolved to grant permission for installation of hollow block making unit by using 10 HP electric motor.

3. Fifth respondent later attempted to instal a metal crusher unit along with hollow block unit in the same properly. A mass petition dt. 12.6.1993 signed by the people of the locality who are agriculturists was submitted to the Panchayat Their apprehension was that if permission is granted for starting a metal crusher unit, the same would adversely affect their paddy cultivation. It would create atmospheric and water pollution in that area. Justifying the apprehension of the public, an application dt. 22.4.1994 was submitted by the fifth respondent before the Panchayat on 16.5.1994. Application submitted by the fifth respondent was considered by the Panchayat Committee and the committee vides its resolution No. 9 dt. 18.6.1994 directed the Executive Officer to seek certain clarifications from the fifth respondent. Explanation given by the fifth respondent was found to be not satisfactory. Panchayat then vide its resolution No. 27 dt. 2.8.1994 decided to reject the application of the fifth respondent. It was felt, i (permission is granted it will affect nearby bathing ghat, water tank, pump house, paddy cultivation, and also will cause atmospheric and water pollution.

4. In the meanwhile, a neighbouring landowner preferred a complaint before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Fort Kochi against the unauthorised filling up of paddy field by the fifth respondent. The Complaint was forwarded to the Tahsildar, Aluva who after local inspection submitted are port to the Revenue Divisional Officer on 27.6.1994. He has reported that installation of a crusher unit will affect the paddy cultivation. Revenue Divisional Officer also noticed the existence of a public pond and pump house, etc. He opined that if the paddy fields are filled up there will be possibility, of water blocking and destruction of agriculture.

5. Fifth respondent in the meantime filed an application dated 28.3.1994 before the Pollution Control Board for a no objection certificate to set up a metal crusher unit for production of 2950 tonnes of metal and 50 tonnes of dust per month in Sy. No. 359/1 of Manjapra Village. Pollution Control Board however, issued Ext. P7 certificate dt. 20.10.1994 subject to certain conditions. On a request made by the fifth respondent before the District Medical Officer of Health, an inspection was conducted by the Deputy District Medical Officer of Health (B) and Technical Assistant Gr. I. On the basis of the said report, District Medical Officer of Health vide his letter dt. 20.2.1995 opined that there is no objection to issue of licence for setting up metal crusher unit from public health point of view, subject to certain terms and conditions.

6. After getting Exts. P7 and P8 certificates fifth respondent preferred an appeal before the second respondent. Vice President of the Muralipadam Paddy Producers Committee objected to grant of permission for starting a metal crusher unit. Second respondent, however, allowed the appeal and directed the Panchayat to issue licence to the fifth respondent.

7. Aggrieved by the order of the second respondent, President of the Grama Panchayat filed a revision before the Government. Vice President of the Muralipadam Paddy Producers Committee also preferred a petition before the Government. The Governme