Point of Law: Quarry license - Powers, functions and the rights of Grama Sabha - beneficiary schemes and developmental programs, the Act, 1994 does not empower the Grama Sabhas to interfere with or dabble in the statutory exercise of various powers exercisable by the Panchayat and its functionaries - Any decision by the Grama Sabhas, therefore, cannot affect the powers and functions of the licensing authorities under the Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 including the power to issue a licence under Section 233.

JUDGMENT :

W.P.(C) Nos.17148/2020 and 10534/2021 are filed by the same petitioner and the writ petitions relate to the same legal issue. W.P.(C) No.27773/2020 and W.P.(C) No.28527/2020 are filed by two others, in similar circumstances. In WP(C) No.17148/2020, the petitioner seeks to quash Ext.P9 order rejecting his application for D&O Licence and seeks to declare that he is entitled to the licence in view of Exts.P1 to P6. Pending WP(C) No.17148/2020, the Grama Panchayat issued a communication dated 19.04.2021 informing that the Panchayat has taken a policy decision not to grant D&O Licence for new quarries. The said order, Ext.P10, is under challenge in WP(C) No.10534/2021.

2. In W.P.(C) No.27773/2020, the petitioner seeks to quash Ext.P8 and to declare that the action of the 1st respondent in not processing the application covered by Ext.P6 is highly unjust and illegal. W.P.(C) No.28527/2020 has been filed seeking to quash Ext.P8 therein by holding that the general decision to ban future quarries as per Ext.P5 due to the existence of other quarries, is unconstitutional after calling for the records leading thereto. The petitioner also seeks to declare that he has secured valid Deemed D&O Licence from 15.01.2019 for running the quarry.

3. The disputes in all the four writ petitions arise consequent to a decision taken by the Triprangottoor Grama Panchayat following the resolutions of Grama Sabhas, not to grant D&O Licence to new quarries, citing environmental concerns. The respondents and documents are referred to in this judgment as they are arrayed/marked in WP(C) No.17148/2020.

4. The petitioner in W.P.(C) No.17148/2020 is the Managing Partner of M/s.Maria Construction Needs, Vazhamala. The petitioner sought Environmental Clearance (EC) for a quarry to be started, in Survey Nos.275/1A, 274/2 in Thrippangottoor Village of Thalassery Taluk. The petitioner was granted Ext.P1 Environmental Clearance Certificate. The Pollution Control Board issued Ext.P2 Consent to Operate.

5. By Ext.P3, the Deputy Chief Controller granted Ext.P3 approval for Explosives Magazine. Ext.P4 communication of the Geologist stated that the petitioner can be granted Quarrying Lease on production of D&O Licence. The Mining Plan of the petitioner was approved as per Ext.P5 of the Geologist, under Rule 62 of the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1967. The nearby land owners granted Ext.P6 consent.

6. However, the 2nd respondent-Secretary to Grama Panchayat rejected petitioner’s application for D&O Licence, as per Ext.P7. By Ext.P8 judgment in WP(C) No.1415/2019, this Court set aside Ext.P7 order and directed to reconsider the application for D&O Licence. The Secretary, however, rejected the application again, as per Ext.P9, for the following reasons:

(i) Environmental Clearance Certificate has to be obtained from State Authority.

(ii) The proposed quarrying area being landslide prone, prior permission of District Disaster Management Authority is required.

(iii) Explosives Licence not produced.

(iv) There were instances of landslide in the area and ST families had to be accommodated in Shelters for long duration.

(v) The Special Grama Sabhas of Ward Nos.2, 3 and 4 have unanimously resolved not to permit new quarries in the area.

(vi) The District Collector has requested NCESS to give a report on the impact of quarries on ecology and till a report is received, it would be inappropriate to issue new quarry licences.

7. The petitioner submitted application invoking the Right to Information Act, 2005 seeking reports relied on by respondents 1 and 2 in rejecting the petitioner's application. The respondents have not divulged any information to the petitioner. On 19.04.2021, the 2nd respondent issued Ext.P10 order (in WPC No.10534/2021) rejecting the petitioner’s application holding that the Panchayat Committee has considered the application of the petitioner and decided to reject the same. The petitioner challenges Ext.P10 order in WP(C) No.10534/2021. The application