1996 Supreme(Ker) 473
High Court of Kerala
S. Sankarasubban, J.
S Pathrose - Appellant
Versus
State of Kerala & Ors - Respondent
O.P. No. 3366 of 1990
Decided On : 27-06-1996
The fundamental right to exercise profession and trade, and the government's duty to provide adequate protection to citizens in exercising their lawful rights.
Headnote:
Licence Cancellation - Ice Plant - Kerala Panchayat Act - S.97 - [POLLUTION CONTROL ACT, KERALA PANCHAYAT ACT] - The court quashed the cancellation of the licence for an ice plant, emphasizing the lack of sufficient reasons for the cancellation and the failure to consider the petitioner's lawful rights. The court highlighted the fundamental right to exercise profession and trade, and emphasized the need for the government to provide adequate protection to citizens in exercising their lawful rights.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner applied for a licence to construct an ice plant, which was granted by the Panchayat. However, the licence was later cancelled based on complaints of potential pollution and communal tension by the District Collector and the fifth respondent.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the cancellation of the licence was unwarranted and lacked sufficient reasons. It emphasized the petitioner's lawful rights and the need for the government to provide adequate protection to citizens in exercising their lawful rights.
Issues: The main issue was the validity of the cancellation of the licence for the ice plant, based on complaints of potential pollution and communal tension.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the fundamental right to exercise profession and trade, and the government's duty to provide adequate protection to citizens in exercising their lawful rights. It highlighted the lack of sufficient reasons for the cancellation of the licence and the failure to consider the petitioner's lawful rights.
Final Decision: The court quashed the cancellation of the licence and directed the petitioner to approach the Panchayat again for the grant of licence, with the requirement to obtain a certificate from the State Pollution Control Board.
S. Sankarasubban, J.
1. Petitioner is the owner of 11 cents of property in Sy.No.53/3 of KadakkavoorVillage. He applied to the Anjengo Panchayat for licence for manufacturing iceand for constructing a building for the plant. Ext. P1 will show that thePanchayat had permitted him to install 50 H.P. electric motor. It will furthershow that the District Medical Officer and the District Fire Force Officer hadgranted their approval. Ext. P2 is the order issued by the Executive Officerseparately on the basis of Ext. P1 sanctioning construction of the work placeas well as starting of industry for manufacturing ice. Ext. P5 registrationcertificate issued by the Director of Industries and Commerce will show thatthe product to be manufactured is ice blocks and the raw materials are freshwater and ammonia gas. Petitioner also applied for electricity connection andthe Electricity Board granted the same by Ext. P6. On the basis of the above,petitioner has started construction of the building.
2. According to the petitioner, there were frequent interference from the fifthrespondent President of Anchuthengu Muslim Juma Ath during theconstruction of the building. The proposed ice plant and the mosque aresituated on the opposite sides of the road. When there was interference by thefifth respondent, petitioner got police protection from the Revenue DivisionalOfficer. Subsequently, petitioner received copy of the communicationaddressed by the District Collector to Circle Inspector of Police, Attingal. Thisrefers to a complaint by the fifth respondent. It is stated that on enquiry, it wasfound that there is every likelihood of Juma Ath being polluted by dirty waterfrom the proposed ice plant and also the entire atmosphere will be pollutedwith foul smell of fish. This may create difficulties for those who go to JumaAth and ultimately result in communal tension. On the basis of this, CircleInspector of Police was directed to see that the construction of the building isnot made further. Subsequently, petitioner approached the District Collectorand sought permission for completion of the construction of the building andundertook that he would not start manufacturing process until he hears fromthe District Collector.
3. It is seen that on the basis of the complaint of the fifth respondent, DistrictCollector made enquiries through the Circle Inspector of Police and on thebasis of his personal inspection, District Collector passed Ext. P9 order bywhich he came to the conclusion that if the ice plant is allowed to be operatedin the area, there is every likelihood of the neighbouring area being pollutedand further lorries carrying fish will be parked in front of the Juma Ath and thismay ultimately lead to communal tension. By Ext. P9, District Collectordirected the Executive Officer of the Panchayat to cancel the licence. AgainstExt. P9, petitioner filed representation before the Government. But theGovernment dismissed the same by means of Ext. P10 order. Petitioner praysfor quashing of Exts.P7, P9 and P10 and for a direction not to interfere withthe construction of the ice plant by the petitioner.
4. Counter affidavits have been filed by the District Collector as well as by thefirst respondent filed a complaint on the basis of which enquiry was started. InPara.13 of the counter affidavit it is stated that there was no provision fordrainage facilities to discharge the effluent from the factory premises. Thelorries laden with fish may step in the premises of the factory near the Mosquethereby flowing foul water from the lorries to the road and from there to theMosque's compound and if such a situation is permitted, it may create tensionbetween Muslim and Christian Communities. The law and order authoritiescannot put the issue of experiment. In Para.14 of the counter affidavit, it isstated that there was no provision for drainage facilities to discharge theeffluent from the factory premises. The factory may become potential sourceof perpetual nuisance. In t