The Panchayat cannot deny permits when all necessary licenses are obtained, as established by previous judgments.

JUDGMENT

This writ petition is filed with following prayers:

i. call for the records leading to Ext. P7 and Issue a writ of certiorari to quash the same, ii. declare that the respondent Panchayat is not having any authority to deny permit to the petitioner to conduct quarrying operation in the proposed site iii. Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents No. 1 and 2 to issue permit to the petitioner for conducting quarrying operation;

iv. Dispense with filing of the translation of vernacular documents, v. Pass such other orders as this Honourable Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

(SIC)

2. Petitioner applied for quarrying permit before the respondent Panchayat and when the Panchayat is not taking any action on the application of the petitioner, he approached this Court claiming deemed permit. A Single Bench of Court allowed the writ petition; but the Division Bench set aside the same with liberty to challenge the decision taken by the Panchayat. The Panchayat now Ext.P7 is passed. Aggrieved by the same, this writ petition is filed.

3. The short point raised by the petitioner is that the reason mentioned in Ext.P7 will not sustain in the light of the dictum laid down by a Full Bench of this Court in Tomy Thomas v. State of Kerala and Others [ 2019 (4) KHC 553 ] and the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Ramapuram Grama Panchayat v. St.Basil Industries India (P) Ltd and Others [ 2016 (3) KHC 118 ]. The petitioner also relied on the judgment dated 05.07.2023 in WP(C)

No.11840/2023.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for respondents 4 to 8. I also heard the learned Standing Counsel for the Panchayat and the learned Standing Counsel for the Pollution Control Board.

4. A perusal of Ext.P7 would show that the petitioner obtained all statutory licence and permits. The Standing Counsel for the Panchayat submitted that the petitioner has not obtained permission under the Kerala Irrigation and Water Conservation Act, 2003. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that no permission is necessary because the check dam is situated far away from the premises. A perusal of Ext.P7 would show that the reason for rejecting the application is mainly public interest. A Full Bench of this Court observed that the Panchayat has no power to reject an application, provided that the statutory licence have been obtained. In such circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the Panchayat has to reconsider the matter in the light of the dictum laid down in Tomy Thomas’s case (supra) and Ramapuram Grama Panchayat’s case (supra) and the judgment dated 05.07.2023 in WP(C) No.11840/2023.

Therefore, this Writ Petition is disposed of in the following manner:

1. Ext.P7 is set aside.

2. Respondents 1 and 2 are directed to reconsider the application submitted by the petitioner in the light of the dictum laid down by this Court in Tomy Thomas v. State of Kerala and Others [ 2019 (4) KHC 553 ], Ramapuram Grama Panchayat v. St.Basil Industries India (P) Ltd and Others [ 2016 (3) KHC 118 ] and also in the judgment dated 05.07.2023 in WP(C) No.11840/2023, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.

3. Before passing final orders, an opportunity of hearing should be given to the petitioner and respondents 4 to 8.

sd/-