"C.R."

1. The petitioner in the first among the captioned matters is referred to as the 'operator' and the petitioners in the latter, the 'objectors'.

2. The operator, who, even according to the objectors, has a saw mill, later applied for consent to install machinery with motor capacity of 84 HP to run a pealing and plywood manufacturing unit in addition to the existing saw mill and furniture unit. The panchayat refused it as per decision dated 17.12.2008. The operator appealed against that decision to the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions. That was allowed on 20.3.2009, setting aside the decision of the panchayat and directing the panchayat to pass fresh proper orders, as per law, by strictly following the procedure prescribed by Section 233 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, hereinafter referred to as the 'KPR Act', for short.

3. The objectors and other local residents had, by that time, placed objections to the grant of licence. The said objections were carried to the different authorities. Ultimately, the panchayat again decided to refuse permit for the additional installation by resolution dated 15.5.2009. The operator moved the Green Channel Clearance Committee. The said appeal was allowed directing the grama panchayat to set aside its decision dated 15.5.2009 and to issue installation permit to the operator within 7 days since the clearance/NOC of the Pollution Control Board, Fire Safety Department and Factories and Boilers Department have already been produced. The panchayat was further directed to grant permission for operation as and when NOC from the Forest Department is produced. This decision was issued by the Green Channel Clearance Committee on 23.6.2009. The objectors challenge that decision and the operator seeks its enforcement.

4. The objectors further challenge the vires of Rule 12(4) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj (Issue of Licence to Dangerous and Offensive Trades and Factories) Rules, 1996, hereinafter, the 'D & O Rules', for short, which provides an appeal to the Green Channel Counter against the decision of the village panchayat. In its terms, Rule 12(4) as it now stands, obliges the village panchayat to abide by the decision of the Green Channel Clearance Committee by stating that the village panchayat is liable to implement the decision of the Green Channel Committee on the appeal. The contention of the objectors regarding the vires of that sub-rule is that it is made in excess of the rule making powers of the Government, as are contained in Sections 232, 233 and 234 of the KPR Act and that the said provision contradicts the availability of the specific statutory remedy provided by the preliminary legislation, viz., the KPR Act, in Section 276(5) thereof. It is accordingly contended that Rule 12(4) does not lie as a subordinate rule that could be enforced or resorted to on the face of the statutory remedies available by the preliminary legislation under Section 276. It is thus pointed out that there will be clear contradiction of jurisdictions, paving way to even forum shopping, if the said sub-rule is permitted to stand. It is thus pointed out that Rule 12(4) is unconstitutional and ultravires the KPR Act.

5. On facts, it is contended by the objectors that the operator did not get NOC from various departments and being an industry related to timber, no activity could be had without the clearance of the Forest Department. It is pithily pointed out that there is clustering of such activity in the area in question leading to unbearable pollution and it is therefore, that the local pubic are seriously prejudiced by the grant of any licence.

6. The materials demonstrate that even after the remit by the Tribunal for LSGIs, the panchayat had issued the decision on reasons found unsustainable by the Tribunal earlier and the action of the Green Channel Clearance Committee by recourse to Rule 12(4) of the D & O Rules essentially contradict the decision of the Tribunal rendered in the earl