Best Granites Thippilissery P. O., Kadangode, Thrissur District v. Kadavallur Grama Panchayat, represented by its Secretary; Balakrishnan; Prasannan; Sudheer K.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH** **FRIDAY, THE 05TH DAY OF JULY 2019 / 14TH ASHADHA, 1941** ## **WP(C).No.36102 of 2018** ## **PETITIONER:** **BEST GRANITES THIPPILISSERY P. O, KADANGODE, THRISSUR DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, P.K. JALEEL.** **BY ADVS. SRI.K.P.SUDHEER SMT.ANJALI NAIR** ## **RESPONDENTS:** **1 KADAVALLUR GRAMA PANCHAYAT REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, KARIKKADU P. O, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN- 680519.** - **2 BALAKRISHNAN P. S/O.P.C.VELUKUTTY PANTHAPULAKAL HOUSE THIPPILLISSERY POST, KARIKKAD THRISSUR** **3 PRASANNAN S/O.JANARDHANAN PUTHNVEETIL HOUSE THIPPILLISSERY POST, KARIKKAD THRISSUR** **WP(C)No.36102 of 2018** **2** **4 SUDHEER K. KURUTHOLIL HOUSE THIPPILLISSERY POST, KARIKKAD THRISSUR** **(ADDITIONAL RESPONDENTS 2 TO 4 ARE IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 08.01.2019 IN IA. NO.1/2018)** **BY ADVS. SRI.DEEPU THANKAN SMT.ANJANA KANNATH SMT.NIMMY JOHNSON SMT.UMMUL FIDA SRI.A.ABDUL NABEEL** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05.07.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **WP(C)No.36102 of 2018** **3** ## **J U D G M E N T** ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ The petitioner is aggrieved by the decision of the 1[st] respondent - Panchayat by which an application for establishment of a quarry submitted by the petitioner has been declined by the Panchayat. 2. The petitioner intended to start a mining quarry in Perumbilavu Village, Thalappilly Taluk in Thrissur District. By Ext.P1 dated 15.10.2015, the Director of Mining and Geology opined that a mining lease can be granted to the petitioner subject to production of mining plan and environmental clearance from SEIAA. The Director of Mining and Geology stated that on production of requisite documents, quarrying lease can be granted. Thereupon, the petitioner approached the SEIAA. The said authority granted environmental clearance subject to full and effective implementation of all the undertakings given in the **WP(C)No.36102 of 2018** **4** application form and implementation of mitigation measures as assured in the environment management plan. The said Ext.P2 environmental clearance granted on 05.02.2018 is valid upto 04.02.2023. The Kerala State Pollution Control Board also granted Ext.P3 integrated consent to the petitioner. 3. Thereupon, the petitioner approached the Petroleum and Explosives Safety Organisation, Ministry of Commerce and Industry, seeking permission for possession for use of explosives. Thereupon, the Deputy Chief Controller of Explosives, Ernakulam, granted Ext.P4 licence dated 12.06.2018. The petitioner also has persons holding Mine Foreman's Certificate of Competency, Mining Mate's Certificate of Competency, Certificate of Competency to Manage Metalliferous Mine and Manager's Certificate of Competency, to effectively carrying of mining activities. On the basis of all the certificates and clearances, the petitioner submitted Ext.P6 application before the respondent - Panchayat seeking licence to run his proposed quarry. **WP(C)No.36102 of 2018** **5** Ext.P6 application for licence dated 05.05.2018 has been received by the Panchayat. However, as a bolt from the blue, the respondent - Panchayat in its meeting held on 22.10.2018, decided that licence need not be given to the petitioner in view of complaints submitted by certain residents of Thippillissery. The said Ext.P7 decision is under challenge. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that similar instances have come up before this Court and in Ext.P8 judgment in W.P.(C) No.17733/2018, a learned Single Judge of this Court following the judgment in _**Ramapuram Grama Panchayat v. Basil Industries India (P) Ltd.** [2016 (2) KLT 219],_ has held that when all requisite clearances and licences are obtained by an applicant for licence, the Panchayat is duty bound in accordance with the Rules to issue licence. The learned Single Judge held that the very fact that the consent has been issued under the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 and Environment Protection Act, 1986 would itself indicate that **WP(C)No.36102 of 2018** **6** allegation of unit causing pollution is baseless. Accordingly, the learned Single Judge in that case allowed the writ petition and directed the Panchayat to issue licence to the petitioner. The petitioner is also entitled to similar reliefs. 5. The 1[st] respondent - Panchayat filed a counter affidavit. The Panchayat admitted that the petitioner has obtained Exts.P1 to P5 clearance certificates and licences from various authorities and has also submitted Ext.P6 application. However, certain persons who are residing near the proposed quarry submitted a complaint against the operator of the quarry. The Panchayat further submitted that some persons are residing at a distance of 100 metres from the boundary of the quarry and are aggrieved by the issuance of licence to the petitioner. It is the duty of the Panchayat to ensure that no harm is caused to any neighboring persons. The rejection of the application is therefore justified. 6. Additional respondents 2 to 4 got impleaded in the writ petition and filed counter affidavit. Additional **WP(C)No.36102 of 2018** **7** respondents 2 to 4 stated that the quarry in question has been functioning as a small scale enterprise and it was shut down due to the complaints made by the local residents. The functioning of the quarry was in violation of existing laws and caused great hardship to the residents. Additional respondents 2 to 4 stated that the petitioner has obtained clearances from statutory authorities in a crooked manner and committing fraud on those authorities. The Pollution Control Board has not made any site visit. The house of the 3[rd] respondent is situated within 15 metres from the eastern boundary of the quarry. There are a number of other persons who are also residing within a distance of 25 to 50 metres from the quarry. They have filed a complaint before the District Collector. The District Collector has directed the Geologist to take necessary action. Additional respondents 2 to 4 relied on the judgments of the Apex Court in _**Shantistar Builders v. Narayan Khimalal Totame** [AIR 1990 SC 630]_ and _**Cooverjee v. Excise Commissioner** [AIR 1954 SC 220]_ to contend that their right to life is to be **WP(C)No.36102 of 2018** **8** protected and no citizen has a right to carry on any business of his choice. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondents and perused the pleadings in the matter. 8. It is clear that the petitioner, who intends to start his project, has obtained requisite licences / clearances from the Directorate of Mining and Geology, the State Environment Impact Assessment Authority, Pollution Control Board and Deputy Chief Controller of Explosives. The petitioner has also submitted application for licence before the 1[st] respondent - Panchayat. This Court has held in the judgment in _**Ramapuram Grama Panchayat**_ ( _supra_ ), that when all authorities had confirmed that a unit will not cause any environment problem and there will not be any pollution to the people at large, in the absence of and other material available in the Panchayat, it cannot reject a valid application. If there has to be a finding that it is objectionable on account of density of population in the neighbourhood, **WP(C)No.36102 of 2018** **9** the District Medical Officer ought to have taken such a view. This Court further held that when a person intends to start an industry in a private property, Panchayat cannot take a view that they have a right to prevent any activity in the property for public purposes. A permit/licence can be rejected only if there is possibility of pollution. 9. In the present case, the petitioner has duly obtained all necessary licences and clearances. If the respondents have any grievances relating to issuance of those licences, the respondents have to agitate their grievances before the appropriate statutory authorities. Without challenging those licences/ clearances in accordance with law, the Panchayat cannot decline licence to the petitioner on the ground that certain local residents have objected to the functioning of the unit. 10. In that view of the matter, Ext.P7 decision of the 1[st] respondent - Panchayat cannot stand the scrutiny of law and hence, it is set aside. The 1[st] respondent - Panchayat is directed to re-consider Ext.P6 application for licence **WP(C)No.36102 of 2018** **10** submitted by the petitioner and grant licence, in the light of the observations made hereinabove. A decision in this regard shall be taken by the 1[st] respondent within a period of sixty days. The writ petition stands disposed of with the above directions. Sd/- **N. NAGARESH, JUDGE** aks/06.07.2019 **WP(C)No.36102 of 2018** **11** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1** **TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 15/10/2015 ISSUED BY THE DIRECTOR OF MINING AND GEOLOGY.** - **EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF ENVIRONMENT CLEARANCE NO.16/2018 ISSUED BY THE STATE ENVIRONMENT IMPACT ASSESSMENT AUTHORITY, KERALA IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER.** - **EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF CONSENT TO OPERATE DATED 19/03/2018 ISSUED BY THE KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD TO THE PETITIONER.** - **EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF LICENCE DATED 12/6/2018 ISSUED BY DEPUTY CHIEF CONTROLLER OF EXPLOSIVE.** - **EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF MINE'S FOREMAN'S CERTIFICATE DATED 15/4/2010 ISSUED BY BOARD OF MINING EXAMINATIONS.** - **EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF MINING MATE'S CERTIFICATE OF COMPETENCY DATED 11/1/2012 ISSUED BY BOARD OF MINING EXAMINATIONS.** - **EXHIBIT P5 B TRUE COPY OF MANAGER'S SECOND CLASS CERTIFICATE OF COMPETENCY TO MANAGE A METALLIFEROUS MINE DATED 02/4/2009 ISSUED BY BOARD OF MINING EXAMINATIONS.** **EXHIBIT P5 C TRUE COPY OF FIRST CLASS MANAGER'S CERTIFICATE OF COMPETENCY DATED 15/6/2011 ISSUED BY BOARD OF MINING EXAMINATIONS.** **WP(C)No.36102 of 2018** **12** **EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION FOR PERMISSION TO ESTABLISH A QUARRY SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE RESPONDENT.** **EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY OF RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT ON RECEIPT OF EXT.P6 APPLICATION.** **EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF DECISION NO.35 DATED 22/10/2018 OF THE RESPONDENT.** **EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 31/7/2018 IN WP(C) NO.17733/2018 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT.** **EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF LETTER ISSUED BY VILLAGE OFFICER, KARIKKAD UNDER RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT.**