SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 1007

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
JIJO THOMAS – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 35753 OF 2025



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SHRI.GEORGEKUTTY MATHEW
For the Respondents: SRI.ANZAR BASHEER, SMT.SARITHA THOMAS, SHRI.K.S.MURALIKRISHNAN, SHRI.SAHL ABDUL KADER, SHRI.RAJEEV V.K., SHRI.GEORGE KAPPEN, SHRI.RAJEEV P.S., SMT NIMA JACOB

Validity of permits for operating a metal crusher unit under relevant local government laws.

Headnote:The Writ Petition seeks Mandamus to prevent the operation of a metal crusher unit by the 7th respondent without valid permits under the Kerala Panchayathraj Act. The Court confirms that prior inspections revealed valid licenses for operation. Issues framed include the legality of the current operations. The Court determines that the renewal conforms to the law, and the petition is disposed of.

Table of Content
1. claim regarding unauthorized operation of a crusher unit. (Para 1 , 2)
2. verification of permits and licenses by the panchayat authorities. (Para 3)

JUDGMENT

The above Writ Petition (C) is filed with the following prayers:

"(i) Issue a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents No.1 to 4 to consider Ext.P7 Complaint and see that the 7th respondent is not running crusher unit in any unauthorized buildings and without obtaining valid Establishment permit under Section 233 of the Kerala Panchayathraj Act and building permit and occupancy certificate of hazardous buildings under Karala Panchayth Building Rules, within the 1st respondent Gramapanchayath, in the interest of justice.

(ii) Issue a writ of Mandamus directing the respondent No.6 to consider Ext.P8 Complaint and pass orders taking note of Ext.P6 sitting criteria, after giving chance of being heard to the petitioner immediately, within the time limit fixed by this honorable court, in the interest of justice."

[SIC]

2. Petitioner is aggrieved mainly because the 7th respondent is running a metal crusher unit in an unauthorised building without obtaining valid permits and license. This Court directed the Panchayat to get instructions. A counter-affidavit is filed by the 4th respondent. It will be better to extract the relevant portion of the counter affidavit.

" 5. It is most respectfully submitted in obedience to the interim directions of this hon’ble court dated 7th October 2025. I have veri relating to the grant of license issued to the said crusher unit run by 7th respondent and thereafter I myself along with Junior Superintendent and Assistant Executive Engineer from the Ayarkunnam Grama panchayath conducted a joint inspection on 14.10.2025 in the said crusher unit in order to ensure the functioning of the crusher unit in accordance with the rules in this regard. On inspection it is found that the said crusher unit was functioning from 1988 onwards and on physical verification it is found that only a crusher unit is functioning in the premises. It is also found that the said unit has obtained required certificates from the Kerala Pollution Control Board up to 30.06.2028 for functioning and the said unit is having required license up to 08/05/2026 from mining and geology department for functioning. Considering all the above licenses and permissions, Ayarkunnam Grama panchayath also renewed the license of the said crusher unit for the year 2025-2026. It is most respectfully submitted that as per records maintained by the panchayath it is revealed that first license to the said unit was first issued as per the decision No.12 of the Ayarkunnam Panchayath Committee meeting held on 14.01.1988.

6. It is to be submitted that after conducting a detailed verification of the records available with the panchayath and to make it clear a further inspection of the crusher unit run by the 7th respondent was carried out with the assistant engineer of the panchayath on 06/11/2025 and a detailed report was prepared. It is also to be submitted that on the joint inspection it is found that certain new buildings other than the buildings entered in the assessment register of the Panchayat were seen in the premises and therefore I am going to issue notice to the seventh respondent to take steps to regularize the new buildings found in the premises in accordance with the building rules. A true copy of the Report of the Joint Inspection held on 06.11.2025 at the crusher unit is produced herewith and the same may be marked as Exhibit R4A

7. It is to be submitted that the panchayath granted the license to the 7th respondent strictly in accordance with the rules and procedures prescribed in this regard and therefore it is most respectfully prayed that the Counter Affidavit may kindly be received on the files of this hon’ble court.

3. Some defects are noted in Ext.R4A by the Panchayat.

The 4th respondent will do the needful as stated in Ext.R4A with notice to the petition

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top