IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
N. NAGARESH, J.
Sinoj Thomas, S/o. Thomas - Petitioner
Versus
Balal Grama Panchayat, Represented by the Secretary & Ors. - Respondents
WP(C) No. 11840 of 2023
Decided On : 05-07-2023
Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2015 - Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 - Sections 232 and 233 - Amendment Act, 14 of 2018 - Gram Panchayat - Conducting quarrying operations - Petitioner aggrieved by Ext.P12 decision and seeking to direct 1st respondent-Grama Panchayat to issue permission to petitioner for conducting quarrying operations forthwith - Citizens who opt for start ups and entrepreneurships should be able to rely on decisions and clearances given by specialised statutory bodies and go ahead with their projects - Para 22.
Finding of the Court :
Panchayats cannot act as if they are protectors and enforcers of all public interests and exercise powers not vested with them - Section 233 of Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, power of Panchayat is laid down in Act with clarity - Citizens who opt for start ups and entrepreneurships should be able to rely on decisions and clearances given by specialised statutory bodies and go ahead with their projects - Local Self Government Institutions cannot take a view different from views of other statutory bodies and stop or create hurdles for entrepreneurs in going ahead with projects which are permitted under laws - Ext.P12 decision of 1st respondent-Panchayat is set aside - In view of eligibility of petitioner noted in Ext.P12, 1st respondent is directed to issue permission to petitioner within a period of one month to conduct quarrying operations based on licences, clearances and consents obtained by petitioner.
Result : Petition allowed.
JUDGMENT :
The petitioner, who is a grantee of Letter of Intent for establishing a Quarrying Unit in Maloth Village, Vellarikkundu Taluk in Kasaragod District, has filed this writ petition aggrieved by Ext.P12 decision and seeking to direct the 1st respondent-Grama Panchayat to issue permission to the petitioner for conducting quarrying operations forthwith.
2. The petitioner holds 2.3310 hectares of land comprised in Survey No.193 of Maloth Village, Vellarikkundu Taluk in Kasaragod District. The Director of Mining and Geology issued Ext.P1 Letter of Intent dated 19.09.2017 to the petitioner for Quarrying Lease under the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2015. The petitioner submitted application to the competent authority and the Geologist approved Ext.P2 Mining Plan for Granite building stone Quarry, to the petitioner.
3. The petitioner applied for Environmental Clearance. The District Environmental Impact Assessment Authority, Kasaragod granted Environmental Clearance to the petitioner on 25.04.2018. The petitioner would submit that the validity of the said Environmental Clearance is still current in view of the notifications issued by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change. The Pollution Control Board also issued to the petitioner Ext.P6 Consent to Operate. The Joint Chief Controller of Explosives granted the petitioner Ext.P7 Explosives Licence.
4. To start the quarrying operations, the petitioner further required permission/licence of the Panchayat authorities under Sections 232 and 233 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994. The petitioner therefore submitted Ext.P9 application on 17.02.2023. The petitioner remitted the required licence fee. But, the Secretary to the Panchayat returned the licence fee and intimated that the fees may be remitted upon getting further instructions from the Panchayat.
5. To the surprise and predicament of the petitioner, the application submitted by the petitioner for permission to establish Quarry was dismissed by the 1st respondent-Panchayat as per its decision dated 24.03.2023. The decision to not grant permission to the petitioner was on the basis of a decision of the Panchayat that a new Quarry need not be permitted in the Panchayat area.
6. The petitioner submits that he was not granted an opportunity of being heard before the Panchayat taking the decision adverse to the petitioner. The petitioner would further submit that in view of the amendment effected to Section 233 of the Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, the Panchayat does not have jurisdiction, authority, power or right/discretion to refuse/reject an application for permission. The reason for which the application of the petitioner has been rejected is unsustainable in law, contended the petitioner.
7. Respondents 1 and 2 resisted the writ petition filing counter affidavit. Various objections and complaints were received by the Panchayat authorities from the general public stating that the petitioner has not obtained NOC from the Environmental Impact Assessment Authority. One Rijosh M.J., representing Chamathatta Samrakshana Samithi, submitted a complaint against the proposed Quarry. The complainants were heard. A clarification was sought for from the District Collector as to whether the NOC from the Environmental Impact Assessment Authority and Explosives Licence are still in force.
8. The District Collector has not so far given any reply to the letter sent by the Panchayat. The writ petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties, urged the respondents. The Panchayat Committee decided on 24.03.2023 to reject the application of the petitioner. The writ petition is therefore devoid of any merit and it is only to be dismissed, contended the respondents.
9. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.
10. The petitioner proposed to start a quarrying unit in 2.3310 hectares of land in Maloth Village. The petitioner was issued with Ext.P1 Letter of Intent by the Di
Point of Law : Panchayat institutions can exercise only those powers conferred on and vested with them by legislature.
Local self-government institutions cannot reject applications or create hurdles for projects that have been permitted by specialized statutory bodies and experts, as they lack the authority and techn....
The Panchayat cannot deny permits when all necessary licenses are obtained, as established by previous judgments.
Panchayats cannot override clearances from specialised statutory bodies like SEIAA and Pollution Control Board on quarrying permits.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the obligation of Panchayats to grant permissions and licenses in accordance with relevant legal provisions, and the requirement for expert opinion....
The court emphasizes that cancellations of operational permissions require sustainable reasoning under the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act.
Point of law : Environmental Clearance Certificates issued by DEIAA prior to judgment of National Green Tribunal order are valid as long as they are not subjected to successful challenge.
The right to a hearing before revoking or cancelling a previously granted license is fundamental under administrative law.
The court confirmed that local authorities must ensure compliance with safety regulations when issuing permissions for quarrying operations, and can revoke them upon public complaints about safety vi....
The court held that only the Secretary of the Panchayat holds the authority to consider applications for trade licenses under the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, affirming limitations on the Panchayat's ju....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.