Community objections must be substantiated to challenge permissions for industrial establishments under local laws.

1. Both the writ petitions are concerned with the establishment of an M - sand unit with facilities for crushing metal, as sought to be established by the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.25914/2016, who is the 5th respondent in W.P.(C) No.3147/2015, which is filed by four persons who asserted in the writ petition that they are residing within 200 meters of the proposed industry of the 5th respondent. W.P.(C) No.3147/2016 having been filed first, the parties will be referred to from their status in the said writ petition and so would the documents, unless otherwise specified.

2. There is also a serious objection raised by the 5th respondent with respect to the locus standi of the petitioners, who are said to reside outside the prohibited distance of 100 meters. This Court had, by order dated 06.10.2016, based on the exhibits produced by the 5th respondent as Exts.R(h) to R5(k), directed the petitioners to file separate affidavits answering the allegation of their residences being outside the prohibited distance. Separate affidavits have been filed and the same projects very disturbing issues, which will be dealt with later.

3. The petitioners in W.P.(C) No.3147/2016 contended that they were signatories along with about 200 residents of the Panchayat, in a complaint filed as Ext.P1 before the Secretary of the Grama Panchayat. The petitioners allege that in addition to numerous residences, including theirs, there is a school, a church,a temple, an orphanage and an SC / ST colony within the prohibited distance and the crusher unit would only cause nuisance to the residents of the Panchayat and damage to their properties and the properties of the various institutions. The Panchayat, without following any of the prescriptions under S.233 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, ('Act' for short) decided to grant permission to establish, as is seen from the decision at Ext.P2. A further application made by the5th respondent for 'Consent to Establish' by the Pollution Control Board, produced at Ext.P3, indicates no residences within the prohibited distance of 100 meters, which, according to the petitioners, is a false statement. Ext.P4 'Consent to Establish' issued by the Pollution Control Board is also challenged by the petitioners in the writ petition.

4. In addition to the grounds of the petitioners' lacking locus standi, the 5th respondent has filed a detailed counter affidavit indicating the various sanctions and permissions he has obtained as also asserting that the Panchayat had followed the procedure as prescribed under S.233 of the Act in taking a decision as revealed from Ext.P2. Admittedly, the 5th respondent has been permitted to establish an M - sand Unit, as decided by the Council of the Panchayat. Ext.R5(b) is the order issued by the Chief Town Planner, on the application for building permit being transmitted by the Panchayat to the Chief Town Planner. The 'No Objection Certificate' issued from the office of the Assistant Divisional Officer, Fire and Rescue Services, is produced at Ext.R5(c). The 'No Objection Certificate' issued by the District Medical Officer of Health, is produced at Ext.R5(d). The Panchayat, after Ext.P2 resolution, in accordance with the decision to get a report of the environmental impact, had addressed the State Environmental Impact Assessment Authority. The Department of Environment and Climate Change had, by Ext.R5(f), indicated that there is no such impact assessment required for a crusher unit. A complaint was filed by the two schools, existing in the Panchayat, against the establishment of the crusher unit, in which Ext.R5(g) order was passed by the Kerala State Child Rights Commission, Thiruvananthapuram, i