Court upheld the petitioner's right to a quarrying license under specific provisions of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, rejecting prior objections.

JUDGMENT

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

"i. Issue a Writ of Certiorari, or any other writ, order or direction quashing Ext.P14;

ii. Declare that the petitioner is entitled to get license under section 232 of the Act 1994;

iii. Issue a writ of Mandamus or any other writ, order or direction directing the respondent to grant license under section 232 of the Act 1994 and issue the certificate of such license, forthwith; Or In the alternative iv. Issue a writ of Mandamus or any other writ, order or direction directing the respondent to dispose of the application for license under section 232 untrammelled by / without referring to the reason mentioned in Ext.P14;

v. To grant such other reliefs as this Hon’ble Court may deem just and fit in the circumstances of the case; and vi. To dispense with filing of the translation of vernacular documents."

[SIC]

2. The petitioner obtained Ext.P1 letter of intent for conducting quarrying operations in an extent of 2.3611 hectares of land comprised under Re-survey Nos.381/6, 381/59, 381/64, 381/66 of Block No.35 of Kannambra Village, Alathur Taluk, Palakkad District from the competent authority. Thereafter, the petitioner approached the Kannambra Grama Panchayat seeking permission under Section 233 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act , 1994 (for short ‘Act 1994’) read with Rule 12 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj (Issue of License to Factories, Trades, Entrepreneurship Activities and other Services) Rules, 1996 (for short ‘Rules 1996’). Since the Panchayat did not communicate any order either granting or rejecting the application within the stipulated time, the petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.27264/2024, seeking statutory right of deemed license under Section 236 (3) of the Act 1994. The respondent, defended the Writ Petition for the reasons interalia that the proposed site is lying near to a Gas pipeline drawn by the Bharat Petroleum Limited and that quarrying is prohibited in such area. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner replied it by producing documents issued by the competent authority stating that there is no objection for conducting quarrying operations because of the proximity of the pipeline. The Writ Petition was allowed by this Court by rejecting the objections raised by the respondent, is the submission. In compliance of the judgment, permission under Section 233 of the Act 1994, was granted. Upon getting such permission, the petitioner submitted an application for license under Section 232 of the Act 1994, r/w Rule 5 of the Rules 1996, which was considered and rejected by the Panchayat instead of the competent authority i.e., the Secretary, is the submission. The order of rejection was again challenged by the petitioner before this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.15216/2025. The said Writ Petition was allowed by this Court by quashing the order passed by the Panchayat and directing the respondent herein to dispose of the application. Now the respondent Secretary, rejected the application again for the sole reason that the proposed site is lying near to the pipeline drawn by the BPCL, which was earlier raised at the stage of Section 233 and rejected by this Court in W.P.(C) No.27264/2024, to which the respondent is also a party, is the submission.

Aggrieved by the same, this Writ Petition is filed.

3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Panchayat and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 2^nd respondent.

4. The petitioner is challenging Ext.P14 order. This Court perused the same. The only reason for rejecting the application is that a pipeline drawn by BPCL is there near the proposed site.

5. When this Writ Petition came up for consideration before this Court on 11.03.2026, t