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) 25290

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P.V.Kunhikrishnan, J
Ajayan Joseph – Appellant
Versus
Purapuzha Grama Panchayat – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 45215 OF 2025



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.V.M.KRISHNAKUMAR, SMT.SANJANA JAYAKUMAR, SRI RENJITH THAMPAN
For the Respondents: SHRI.SHYSON P.MANGUZHA

Panchayats cannot override clearances from specialised statutory bodies like SEIAA and Pollution Control Board on quarrying permits.

Headnote:The petitioner sought to operate a quarry after obtaining environmental clearance, consent to operate, explosive license, and letter of intent from statutory authorities including SEIAA and Kerala State Pollution Control Board. The Panchayat rejected the trade license application under Section 233 of Kerala Panchayat Raj Act citing an expert report prohibiting quarrying. Court found reliance on expert statutory clearances justified. Issues framed: Whether Panchayat can override clearances by specialised bodies. Ratio: Panchayats lack expertise to contradict statutory authorities on pollution, environment, and explosives; must align with such clearances for entrepreneurships. Ext.P1 judgment extracted affirming specialised bodies' primacy.

Result: Writ petition disposed; Ext.P13 set aside; Panchayat directed to reconsider application per Ext.P1 and similar licenses.

Table of Content
1. petitioner obtained all statutory quarry licenses; panchayat rejected application. (Para 2)
2. court reviews prior judgment on primacy of expert statutory clearances. (Para 3 , 4)
3. panchayat must reconsider per expert clearances and similar licenses issued. (Para 5)

JUDGMENT

This Writ Petition (C) is filed seeking the following reliefs:

" (i) Call for records leading to Exts.P10, P13 and P14 and Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing Exts.P10, P13 and P14 proceedings.

(ii) Declare that the petitioner is entitled to operate his quarry in the light of Ext.P9 license.

(iii) Issue a writ of Mandamus directing the 3rd respondent to issue Trade License under section 232 of Kerala Panchayath Raj Act to the petitioner for running the quarry immediately, within the time limit fixed by this Hon’ble Court, in the interest of justice.

(iv) issue such other orders, writs or directions as are deemed fit by this Hon’ble Court.

(v) award cost of this proceedings to the petitioners."

[SIC]

2. The petitioner propose to operate a quarry in 0.9920 hectares of land in survey No.32/2 of Purapuzha Village and obtained all statutory licenses and permissions required under law, including Environmental clearance from SEIAA, Consent to operate from the Kerala State Pollution Control Board, Explosive License, Blastman License, and Letter of Intent from the Department of Mining and Geology. The Panchayat rejected the application submitted by the petitioner under Section 233 continuously. The main reason stated in the impugned order is that the expert agency stated that in the entire Panchayat area, quarrying should be prohibited. The petitioner relied on the Ext.P1 judgment and also relied on Exts.P16 and P17. Exts.P16 and P17 are the licenses issued for quarrying operations in the same Panchayat. Hence, this writ petition.

3. Heard counsel for the petitioner and the Standing Counsel appearing for the Panchayat.

4. This Court perused Ext.P1 judgment. It will be better to extract paragraph Nos.21 and 22 of the Ext.P1 judgment:

" 21. In our Constitutional Scheme of Governance, we have created various statutory authorities administering and governing multiple areas of social life. All statutory authorities have their own fields / areas where they have expertise. We have State Pollution Control Boards who are experts in their areas and are legally bound to consider all aspects of Air, Water and Sound pollution concerning existing and new establishments and entities. State and District Environmental Impact Assessment Authorities are expert bodies who give Environmental Clearances to new projects in consultation with District Environmental Appraisal Committees. The Explosives Act has created Commissionerates to deal with Explosives Safety concerns.

22. When such specialised and expert statutory bodies are created, Panchayat Committees, who cannot claim expertise in those areas, cannot take a view contrary to that of other competent statutory authorities. Citizens who opt for start ups and entrepreneurships should be able to rely on the decisions and clearances given by specialised statutory bodies and go ahead with their projects. Local Self Government Institutions cannot take a view different from the views of other statutory bodies and stop or create hurdles for the entrepreneurs in going ahead with projects which are permitted under laws."

5. This Court also perused Exts.P15 to P17 license issued by the respondent Panchayat for quarrying permit. If that is the case, I am of the considered opinion that the reason mentioned in Ext.P13 will not stand. The application is to be reconsidered by the Panchayat in the light of Ext.P1 judgment and also in the light of Exts.P15 to P17.

Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of with the following directions.

1. Ext.P13 is set aside.

2. The 2nd respondent is directed to reconsider the application submitted by the petitioner in the light of Ext.P1 judgment and also in the light of Exts.P15 to P17, as e

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