HIGH COURT OF KERALA
N. NAGARESH, J
SACHU RAJAN EAPEN, – Appellant
Versus
THE KALANJOOR GRAMA PANCHAYAT, – Respondent
WP(C)/26164/2022
Quarrying - Grama Panchayat - Sections 232, 233 of Act 1994 - The court emphasized that applications must be considered individually, rejecting a blanket refusal policy enforced by the Grama Panchayat, thus ensuring compliance with procedural mandates.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner applied for a quarrying license which was rejected by the Grama Panchayat based on a policy decision not to grant new licenses.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the rejection was not legally sustainable as each application must be considered independently under the relevant statutes, regardless of the Panchayat's general policy.
Issues: Whether the Grama Panchayat could reject the application based on a broad policy decision against new quarries.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that blanket policies cannot override statutory obligations to consider each application under Section 232 and Section 233 of the Act.
Final Decision: The court set aside the rejection of the quarry license application and directed reconsideration by the Grama Panchayat.
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 26th day of A ugust, 2022 The petitioner submitted an application for licence for conducting quarrying activities. The Secretary to the Grama Panchayat rejected the application as per Ext.P8. Ext.P8 would show that the application for licence has been rejected on the ground that the Panchayat Committee has taken a policy decision that no new licences be granted for opening quarries.
2. A Division Bench of this Court considered similar issue inThrippangottur Grama Panchayat and another v. M.K. Chandran and others [2020 KHC 2559]. This Court held that:
“ A s per G.O.(P) No.80/2017, other amendments were also made to the rules with respect to the receipt of the application, issuance of acknowledgment and processing of the same by including R.5A and adding a proviso to R.6, whereby, it is specified that "provided if the application is submitted along with the requisite clearance from other departments stipulated under these rules for grant of license along with the fee specified in the Schedule II, the President of the Grama Panchayat shall issue the licence applied for within seven days from the date of receipt of the application along with the requisite clearances". In fact, consequent to the introduction of the proviso to R.6, virtually the power of the president under R.6 is circumscribed or watered down, if the application is submitted with the requisite clearances from other departments and complying with the other prescriptions contained under the proviso as discussed above, especially due to the expression "shall" used in the added proviso.
We have discussed the relevant provisions of the A ct, 1994, and the Rules, 1996 in detail, to emphasise that the Panchayat, the Secretary and the President are endowed with requisite powers to consider any applications received under S.232 and S.233, independent of other clearances to be issued by other statutory authorities under various other enactments, only if such clearances are not produced along with the application in contemplation of the afore proviso. This we also say because a report of an RQP is never a subject matter of consideration for the Panchayat in the matter of grant of licence to an entrepreneur. True, it may enable the Panchayat to identify certain situations while processing the application, however, it cannot be said to be absolutely binding, on the Panchayat and its officers, or to put it straight the Panchayat and its officers are guided by clear statutory provisions which alone they are bound to follow. But, at the same time, the decision taken by the Grama Panchayat in general not to grant licence for new quarries, cannot be sustained under law, because the provisions of S.232 and S.233 and the rules would make it clear that each and every application submitted by an entrepreneur is to be considered by the concerned statutory authority in accordance with the provisions of law. In fact, the said question was considered by a Division Bench of this Court in Kadaplamattom Grama Panchayat v. Johny Roy [2013 (3) KLT 1053] and held that, even though the Village Panchayat is vested with powers to pass resolutions as permitted by the provisions of the ct, 1994, and the rules framed thereunder, the mandatory and other functions enumerated in the 3rd Schedule does not empower the Panchayat to take a general decision not to grant permit/license to establish a factory, workplace or other establishments, and that an application cannot be summarily rejected by stating that the Panchayat has taken a policy decision not to permit any such establishments in the Panchayat area. It was also held that such an authority is not vested with the Panchayat under the provisions of S.232, S.233 or the Rules, 1996.”
In view of the law laid down by this Court in Thrippangottur Grama Panchayat and another (Supra), Ext.P8 cannot stand the scrutiny of law.
In the circumstances, Ext.P8 is set aside. There will be a direction to the 2nd respondent-Secretary to Grama Pancha
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.