The petitioner, who is carrying on quarrying operations had applied for a renewal of the Dangerous and Offensive (D.&O.) license that was granted to him by the respondent Panchayat. The said application was rejected by Ext.P6 order stating that the renewal application could not be considered on merits since the petitioner had not obtained a permission in terms of S.233 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act. In the Writ Petition, it is the specific case of the petitioner that in the quarrying unit, he uses only a portable drilling machine for the purposes of the quarrying activities and, inasmuch as the said machine is exempted in terms of S.233B(d) of the Act, the requirement of taking a permit in terms of S.233 does not arise in his case. The prayer in the Writ Petition therefore is for quashing Ext.P6 order and directing the respondents to consider and pass orders on the application for renewal of D.& O. license, afresh, taking note of the statutory provision governing issuance of a permit under S.233.

2. A statement has been filed on behalf of the respondent Panchayat, wherein reference is made to a decision of this Court in Mathai John v. District Collector (2015 (3) KLT 195), where considering a similar issue and interpreting the very same provision a learned Single Judge found that the word portable drilling machine used in S.233B(d) would refer only to such machines as are used for construction purposes alone, and not other purposes. It is contended placing reliance on the said decision that inasmuch as the petitioner cannot aspire for the exemption under S.233B(d), he would be obliged to get the permit in terms of S.233 as a precondition for carrying on quarrying activities under cover of the D.& O. license. Ext.P6 order rejecting the application for renewal of D.& O. license is sought to be justified on the said ground.

3. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and also the learned Standing counsel appearing for the respondent Panchayat.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on the Malayalam version of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 and submits that the Act was originally enacted in Malayalam and received the assent of the Governor on 23.04.1994 and was published in the Kerala Gazette Extraordinary No.365 dated 23.04.1994. It was thereafter that an authorised translation in English was published in the Kerala Gazette Extra Ordinary No.675 dated 10.07.1995. In the Malayalam version, the provisions of S.233B(d) read as follows:

“IN OTHER LANGUAGE”

The English translation of the same provision reads as follows:

“233B. Exemptions.--Notwithstanding anything contained in Section 233, no permission of Village Panchayat shall be required for the installation of establishment of the following machinery or manufacturing plants or industrial units, as the case may be, namely:--

(a) …....

(b) …....

(c) …....

(d) portable drilling machines and portable engines used for constructions purpose such as concrete mixers;”

It can be seen from a comparison of the two provisions that there is a patent error that was occasioned in the translation of the original enactment. The meaning attributable to Clause (d) of S.233B, as discernible from the Malayalam version of the enactment, is clear in that the exemption applies to portable drilling machines as also to portable engines used for construction purposes such as concrete mixers. It is also significant to note that if the legislative intention was to confine the exemption to portable machines and engines used for construction purposes, then there was no necessity for using the word “Portable” twice, to qualify both the drilling machines and engines separately, in the English translation of S.233B(d). The provision would, in that event, have read as “portable drilling machines and engines used for construction purposes such as concrete mixers. At any rate, going by the express provisions in the originally enacted Malayalam version of the Act, the inte