Important points
The renewal of application on submission of self-certificate and the fees, contemplated under law shall be read down to mean, on submission of application with required documents under law, due to any changed circumstances-If such insistences were not made, when the permissions/clearances were granted to the petitioner, that by itself, will not disable or prevent the statutory authority for insisting such requirements, if that is a felt necessity of the time during which petitioner sought for renewal of the licenceSec.233 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, is relevant, which is dealing with permission for the construction of factories and the installation of machinery. As per the amended provisions, sub-section (3) is substituted and the Secretary or the officer authorised by him, on receipt of the application, shall enquire and report to the Village Panchayat as to whether the establishment of the factory, workshop or workplace or other installation of machinery or manufacturing plant for which permission is applied for is objectionable by reason of density of population in the neighbourhood and possibility to cause nuisance or pollution and the Village Panchayat, after having considered the application and the reports of the Secretary and of such other authorities as specified in sub-section (4) may, expeditiously as possible, within thirty days, grant the permission either absolutely or subject to such conditions as it thinks fit to impose.

This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to quash Ext.P9 communication issued by the 1st respondent, i.e., the Secretary of the Koppam Grama Panchayat dated 13.04.2018, declining to renew the licence to the Crusher Unit of the petitioner for want of No Objection Certificates from Fire & Rescue Department and the District Medical Officer. Brief material facts for the disposal of the writ petition are as follows:

2. Petitioner is conducting a Crusher Unit in Ward No.9 of the Koppam Grama Panchayat. The Crusher Unit was originally established in the year 1995, in pursuance of the permission granted by the Koppam Grama Panchayat as per Ext.P11 proceedings dated 18.12.1995. According to the petitioner, 1st respondent was granting/renewing licence from time to time till 31.03.2018. The unit is having all the statutory licences or consent, i.e., consent to operate by the Pollution Control Board, licence issued by the Factories and Boilers etc.

3. Ext.P6 application was submitted by the petitioner for renewal of the licence for the period 2018-19. It is the case of the petitioner that, Rule 10 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj (Issue of Licence to Dangerous and Offensive Trade and Factories) Rules, 1996, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules, 1996') stipulates the 1st respondent to renew the licence on submission of such application. However, 1st respondent rejected the same for want of No Objection Certificates as specified above. Further, vide the provisions of the Kerala Investment Promotion and Facilitation Ordinance, 2017, which was later enacted as a law, states that, an NOC from the DMO is applicable only in respect of hospital, clinic, para medical or clinical laboratories or other health care institutions.

4. As far as Fire NOC is concerned, such an approval is required only in respect of new crusher units, which are established after the enforcement of the Kerala Panchayat Building Rules, 2011. In the present case, the crusher unit was established in the year 1995, and therefore, no such insistence can be made by the 1st respondent.

5. A detailed counter affidavit is filed by respondents 1 and 2. Among other contentions, it is stated that, at the time of granting permission to the predecessor of the petitioner, to establish the crusher in the year 1995, permission was granted only for installing machineries with a total capacity of 65HP, whereas, at present, petitioner has been granted permission for installing machineries of 598HP and the petitioner has already installed machinery with a total capacity of 420HP. So also, from Ext.P3, the power permitted to be used by the petitioner has been enhanced from 26.11KW to 313.32KW. Therefore, it is evident that the industrial unit of the petitioner has made drastic changes in the use of machineries from the time of its original inception 23 years before. Therefore, the petitioner cannot any more rely upon Ext.P11 to get over the requirement of furnishing necessary certificate from the Fire & Rescue Department, as directed in Ext.P9. In effect, the sum and substance of the contention advanced by respondents 1 and 2 is that, when the No Objection Certificates are insisted from the statutory authorities to protect the larger interest of the public, petitioner cannot turn around and say that the petitioner is not liable to produce the same, since those are documents to be considered at the time of granting of the licence and permit.

6. The additional 3rd respondent, who is said to be residing 500 metres away from the crusher unit, has also filed a detailed counter affidavit. It is pointed out thereunder that, there are various nuisances faced by the people of the locality from the crusher unit including severe respiratory and allergic ailments. That apart, it is submitted, while issuing the licence, 1st respondent had a duty to ensure that the project proponent has all the required documents for running an industry of dangerous nature while issuing licence under Sec.232 o