Local self-government institutions cannot reject applications or create hurdles for projects that have been permitted by specialized statutory bodies and experts, as they lack the authority and technical competence to override such expert clearances.

JUDGMENT

This writ petition 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 3^rd 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