Cont. Case (C) No.584 of 2023

**IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS** **WEDNESDAY, THE 26[TH] DAY OF JULY 2023 / 4TH SRAVANA, 1945** **CON.CASE(C) NO.584 OF 2023** **AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 27.05.2020 IN WP(C) 5897/2020** **OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA** ## **PETITIONER/PETITIONER:** **TOMY THOMAS AGED 57 YEARS S/O. THOMAS, PULICKAL HOUSE, KALATHUKADAVU P.O., ERATTUPETTA, KOTTAYAM - 686579** **BY ADV JOBI JOSE KONDODY** ## **RESPONDENT/3RD PARTY AND RESPONDENT NO.2:** **1 SMT. ANUPAMA VISWANATH AGE AND FATHERS NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, THE PRESIDENT, THALAPPALAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT, (THE CHAIRPERSON OF THE COMMITTEE OF THALAPPALAM GRAMAPANCHAYAT), OFFICE OF THE THALAPPALAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT, PLASSANAL.P.O, KOTTAYAM., PIN - 686579** ## **2 MR.RAJEEV.R** **AGE AND FATHERS NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, THE SECRETARY, THALAPPALAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT, OFFICE OF THE THALAPPALAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT, PLASSANAL.P.O, KOTTAYAM., PIN - 686579** **BY ADVS. JAMES KURIAN V.K.PRASAD JOBI JOSE KONDODY MUSTHAHAZIN K. MOHAMMED(K/001739/2022) JOSNA.C.F(K/1268/2023)** ## **ADV. SAIGI JACOB PALATTY, SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER** **THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION** **ON 26.07.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** ## **ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.** ## **===========================** ## **Cont. Case (C) No.584 of 2023** [ _arising out of the impugned judgment dated 27.05.2020 in W.P(C) No.5897/2020_ ] **===========================** Dated this the 26[th] day of July, 2023 ## **JUDGMENT** The above contempt of court case has been filed, alleging noncompliance of the directions and orders passed by this Court, as per Annexure-A1 judgment dated 27.05.2020 rendered by this Court in W.P(C) No.5897/2020 filed by the petitioner herein. 2. Heard both sides. This Court has passed various orders in this case on various occasions. The order dated 24.03.2023 passed by this Court in this contempt case reads as follows : “ _The parties have been heard in extenso._ _2. The petitioner's counsel will give a copy of the memorandum of this contempt case to Sri.M.P. Sreekrishnan, the learned counsel appearing for the State Environmental Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA), Kerala. The SEIAA will immediately give precise and cogent factual instructions to their learned Standing Counsel, as to whether Anx.A5 is only a conditional Environmental Clearance or whether Environmental Clearance is granted to him, with general and special conditions thereto and as to whether the special conditions, appended as per condition Nos.3, 6, 10 to 24 given in para 9 on internal pages 6 to 9 of Anx.A5 Environmental Clearance proceedings dated 28.10.2022, need be actually complied with by the applicant, just before he has to start the mining and quarrying activities. This we say so, as the specific plea raised by the petitioner herein is that the aforesaid conditions in para 9 of Anx.A5 are only special conditions apart from the other general conditions and that Anx.A5 is the grant of the Environmental Clearance and that the Environmental Clearance is not a conditional Environmental Clearance, but that Environmental Clearance has been granted, subject to the petitioner complying with the general and special conditions and in case the petitioner does not comply with the special or general conditions, then the competent authority is entitled to take adverse action against the petitioner, subject, of course, for observing minimal principles of fairness and natural justice._ _2. Prima facie, the abovesaid plea of the petitioner appears to be tenable, as Anx.A5 cannot be said to be a conditional Environmental_ Cont. Case (C) No.584 of 2023 2 _Clearance and what is involved in Anx.A5 is the grant of the Environmental Clearance and some of the special conditions, depending upon the nature of the same, will have to be complied with by the petitioner before the actual commencement of mining and quarrying activity._ _3. Further, this contempt case discloses the sad and tragic story of a litigant, who is constrained either to initiate or face litigations, atleast 17 in number, before various courts and fora, including the Single Bench of this Court, the Division Bench of this Court, the National Green Tribunal, the Apex Court, etc._ _4. He won the litigation initiated by him in the celebrated case of_ _**Tomy Thomas v. State of Kerala** [2019 (3) KLT 987 (FB)], rendered by the Full Bench as early as on 30.08.1997._ _5. After answering the reference, the matter was remitted to the Single Bench and the Single Bench gave a verdict directing the SEIAA to finalise the stop memo proceedings._ _6. It has to be borne in mind that the petitioner has secured almost all the clearances from various authorities, including the Mining and Geology Department under the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, the Explosives Rules, etc., and even the Environmental Clearance from the SEIAA and the Panchayat was consistently refusing to grant him the formal licence under Secs.232 & 233 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act. The Full Bench has categorically laid down the position of law that after the amendment made to those provisions of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, the Panchayat has no discretion to refuse the grant of the licence/permission, both for the trade license and the establishment permit and in a case where the applicant secures all the valid permits and licences, then the Panchayat authority is obliged to grant the abovesaid permissions but it will be within their province of the competent authority to ensure the enforcement of the various conditions. However, the matter did not stop there. Notices after notices were issued by the Panchayat authority, directing the petitioner to produce various documents and materials. The Panchayat authority even went to the extent of issuing a notice to the petitioner, directing that he should even produce consent or non-objection from his wife, as the property is in the name of both the petitioner and his wife. It has to be remembered that the very same Panchayat authority had, without any demur, issued the very same licence to the petitioner before the controversy started and in respect of the very same subject property, when it is fully known to the Panchayat authorities that the subject property jointly belongs to the petitioner and his wife. Demands after demands were made through various notices by the Panchayat authorities. All those requirements in notices have been consistently complied with by the petitioner. The matter did not stop there._ _7. Thereafter, this Court issued the present Anx.A1 judgment as early as on 27.05.2020. Further, this Court had also issued Anx.A2 judgment issuing certain directions therein. In Anx.A2 writ proceedings, the Panchayat authority was not a party._ Cont. Case (C) No.584 of 2023 3 _8. A private litigant filed a third party writ appeal to challenge Anx.A2 judgment. So also, the Panchayat authorities also challenged Anx.A2 judgment. Their litigative venture failed when the Division Bench categorically declared and held in Anx.A3 judgment that the impugned directions in Anx.A2 judgment stands upheld._ _9. Still, the matter did not end there. The private litigant in Anx.A3 has again approached the National Green Tribunal, which, according to the petitioner, was after suppressing crucial aspects in relation to Anx.A2 & A3 litigations before this Court. Be that as it may, the abovesaid venture of the private litigant was also repelled by the Full Bench of the National Green Tribunal, which ended in Anx.A4 verdict of the National Green Tribunal._ _10. Thereafter, the petitioner was again constrained to litigate in respect of certain actions of the SEIAA. A series of contempt orders were passed by the learned Single Judge. Ultimately, proceedings were issued by the SEIAA in August 2022, which, according to the petitioner was not proper compliance of the directions of this Court and the contempt court gave liberty to the petitioner to challenge those conditions. The above said proceedings rendered by the SEIAA in August 2022 were again challenged by the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.21761/2021. It is very interesting to know that yet another private litigant then came forward to raise certain objections against the claims of the petitioner by filing W.P.(C) No.19657/2021. Both those writ proceedings were heard together and the learned Single Judge has effectively held in favour of the petitioner, by directing that the subject Anx.A1 judgment will have to be strictly complied with by the SEIAA in letter and spirit, as can be seen from a reading of the common judgment dated 11.03.2022 rendered in W.P.(C) No.19657 & 21761/2021. It is thereafter that the SEIAA has issued the instant Anx.A5 Environmental Clearance proceedings dated 28.10.2022. Now, a contention is taken up by the Panchayat authorities that Anx.A5 is a conditional Environmental Clearance and not the grant of an Environmental Clearance._ _11. Prima-facie, from a mere reading of Anx.A5, it can be seen that, ordinarily, the SEIAA will impose the standard general conditions and what is granted is the Environmental Clearance and conditions are appended thereto and violations of the conditions will entail action as per the Rules._ _12. In this case, apart from the general conditions, the aforesaid special conditions have also been issued. A reading of para No.9 of Anx.A5 would prima-facie indicate that some of the conditions need be complied with by the petitioner before the mining activity actually commences._ _13. Prima-facie, it has to be observed that, merely because the SEIAA has imposed general and special conditions, as per Anx.A5, it cannot be contended by the Panchayat authorities that Anx.A5 is only a conditional Environmental Clearance and not grant of an Environmental Clearance._ _14. The litigant in the celebrated verdict of the Full Bench in_ _**Tomy**_ Cont. Case (C) No.584 of 2023 4 ## _**Thomas** 's case supra is none other than the present litigant._ _15. In law, he could succeed in his endeavour by the pronouncement of law by the Full Bench, rendered as early as on 30.08.2019 and reported as 2019 (3) KLT 987 (FB). It appears to be the case that various other similarly situated litigants could enjoy the fruits of the litigative efforts of the petitioner through the Full Bench verdict, but the litigant in the present case is even now having to move from pillar to post and beg before various authorities and it appears that the main source of opposition to the petitioner is the elected members of a local self Government Panchayat._ _16. Sri.Joby Jose Kondody, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, would submit, on the basis of instructions, that as a responsible officer of the Court, who is committed to the rule of Law, he would submit, on the basis of instructions, that a very powerful officer of the Indian Police Service is behind the consistent actions against the petitioner, inasmuch as the said person has a rival business interest in a nearby area._ _17. Be that as it may, this Court is faced with a series of actions of various authorities and officers of the Government and other Local Self Government authorities and Public Sector entities, wherein judgments after judgments have been rendered by this Court in many a case and even without challenging the same and without getting any interdiction of such judgments, the authorities are sleeping over the implementation of the judgment and is acting with all impugnity, raising a serious challenge to the very maintenance of the Constitutional order of the Rule of Law and Constitutionalism. It has to be remembered that the Panchayat is a local self government body, which has to adhere to the rule of law and every officer and authority of the Panchayat is under the law and the Constitution._ _18. A judgment of a court of law is to be enforced, as long as it is not interdicted, in the manner known to law. A judgment or a verdict of a Court is not a mere parchment of paper and it can get life and blood only if the respondents comply with the directions of that judgment. Otherwise, it just remains as a paper and illusion, which is a threat to the Rule of law, which would directly lead to the loss of faith of the people in the judicial adjudication process and the Rule of Law._ _19. From a reading of Anx.A5 order, it appears that Dr. B. Venu, I.A.S., Additional Chief Secretary (Home) is also a member of the SEIAA, who has rendered Anx.A5._ _20. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner will, also immediately, give a copy of this contempt memorandum, with all the pleadings to the learned Senior Government Pleader today itself, who is requested to immediately apprise about the pendency of this case to (i) the Additional Chief Secretary (Home) (ii) the Additional Chief Secretary/Principal Secretary to the Government in the LSG Department (iii) Director of Panchayats, (iv) Deputy Director of Panchayats of the area concerned._ Cont. Case (C) No.584 of 2023 5 _21. This Court would request the abovesaid officers to bestow their attention to the facts of this case and the tragic and terrible plight of the litigant, who has won litigation after litigation and is still facing roadblocks after roadblocks in his quest for justice._ _22. This Court would hope and trust that the abovesaid officers would look into this matter and may give necessary directions to the authorities concerned._ _List the matter on 03.04.2023 at 3.30 p.m., in the Court._ ” ## 3. The order dated 03.04.2023 passed by this Court in this ## case reads as follows : _“Today when the matter has been taken up for consideration, Sri.M.P.Sreekrishnan, learned Standing Counsel for the State Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA), Kerala, has made submissions before this Court, on the basis of instructions of that authority in pursuance of the order dated 24.3.2023._ _2. The learned Standing Counsel for the SEIAA would submit, on the basis of instructions, that, Anx.A-5 proceedings dated 28.10.2022 is not a conditional Environmental Clearance (EC) granted by the SEIAA and that, in every such EC, there will be a set of general conditions (applicable to all ECs) and some site specific conditions (for protecting the local environment) as special conditions, to be complied during the course of project implementation. Further that, compliance of these conditions is to be incorporated in the half yearly compliance reports to be submitted by the project report. Further, the learned Standing Counsel for the SEIAA would submit that the argument and contention of the respondent local grama panchayat, that, Anx.A-5 issued by SEIAA is a conditional EC, is not correct._ _3. During the course of submissions, Sri.M.P.Sreekrishnan, learned Standing Counsel for the SEIAA, would also submit, that, the abovesaid stand taken by the respondent grama panchayat, as if Anx.A-5 is a conditional EC, is a misconception and is untenable._ _4. The learned Standing Counsel was requested by this Court, as an officer of this Court, to submit as to whether, in the light of these developments, including the issuance Anx.A-5 EC by the SEIAA and all other permits concerned from all other authorities, etc., whether the local grama panchayat is bound to issue licenses/permits, as envisaged in Secs.232 & 233 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994._ _5. Sri.M.P.Sreekrishnan, learned Standing Counsel for the SEIAA, would submit that, as an officer of this Court, he would submit, that, going by the dictum laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in the case Tomy_ Cont. Case (C) No.584 of 2023 6 _Thomas v. State of Kerala [2019 (3) KLT 987 (FB)] as well as the concluded directions issued by this Court in Anx.A-1 judgment, an authority like the local grama panchayat is bound to comply with the said judgment and to issue the licenses/permits as the case may be, under Secs.232 & 233 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act and they do not have any discretion to deny such licenses/permits, if all other authorities have granted the necessary licenses/permits._ _6. This Court had specifically raised these queries to the learned Standing Counsel, as attempts were made by the local grama panchayat to contend that they are otherwise willing to comply with the judgment and that, Anx.A-5 is a conditional EC and that, therefore, their hands are tied, etc._ _7. Sri.V.K.Prasad, learned counsel appearing for R-2 (Panchayat Secretary), would submit, on the basis of instructions and on the basis of the memo and documents produced as Anx.R-2(a) along with I. A. No. 1/2023, filed by R-2 in this case, that, after studying the entire case papers and after going through the well considered stand of the SEIAA in Anx.A-5 proceedings, he has advised R-2 (Panchayat Secretary) to issue the Establishment Permit under Sec.233 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, in terms of Anx.R-2(a) proceedings dated 25.3.2023, issued by the 2nd respondent, wherein it has been stated that the said permission will stand cancelled in case any of the conditions stipulated by the licensing authorities, government authorities or any statutory authorities, in regard to the functioning/operations/statutory compliance is not complied with or violated by the licensee. Further that, it is also stated in Anx.R-2(a) that the said permission will be subject to the orders in the present Contempt case, as that case is pending before this Court._ _8. This Court queried to Sri.M.P.Sreekrishnan, learned Standing Counsel for the SEIAA, as to the procedure for dealing with the scenario of alleged non compliance by the party concerned, like the petitioner herein, in case the authority alleges non compliance and the applicant concerned has a case that there is no violation of the EC, etc._ _9. To this, Sri.M.P.Sreekrishnan, learned Standing Counsel for the SEIAA, would submit, that, it is precisely for such contingencies that the SEIAA, which is an authority constituted under the Environment (Protection) Rules and notifications framed under the central enactment concerned, viz. The Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, has framed Condition No.24 of Anx.A-5 EC, which has mandated the constitution of a Local Monitoring Committee, consisting the President of Thalappalam Grama Panchayat as Chairman, Member of the Ward, one nominated Member of the Biodiversity Management Committee, Project proponent, Expert from the Environment Management Cell of the Project and the representative from the Department of Mining and Geology, etc., to examine such issues and to then take decision as to whether there is any non compliance of conditions appended to Anx.A-5._ _10. Hence, it is very clear from the stand taken by the SEIAA, which is_ Cont. Case (C) No.584 of 2023 7 _an authority constituted under the central enactment and the rules and notifications framed thereunder, that, the decision has to be taken on the issues of non compliance only by observing the Principles of Natural Justice and Fairness and through a transparent procedure, as envisaged in Condition No. 24 of Anx.A-5 and there is no question of any unilateral action by an authority like the Grama Panchayat, which may allege about non compliance. Condition No.25 of Anx.A-5 is also pointed to this Court, which says that violation of EC conditions may lead to cancellation of EC and action under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. Hence, the legal position in the matter is crystal clear in the light of the declaration of law by the Full Bench in Tomy Thomas's case supra as well as in the concluded judgment as per Anx.A-1 and in the light of the general and special conditions envisaged in Anx.A-5 EC, which is not a conditional EC, but an EC in the eye of the rules and notifications concerned as per the Environment (Protection) Act._ _11. Anx.A-1 judgment has become final and conclusive. The respondent Grama Panchayat has never chosen to challenge Anx.A-1 judgment in the manner known to law, either by a review or by an intracourt appeal or a review after the intra-court appeal or by SLP etc., before the Apex Court. The previous order passed by this Court on 24.3.2023 has referred to various attempts made by third parties, who, according to the petitioner, are stage managed at the instance of the powers that be, to place various hurdles in the path of the petitioner, in spite of him winning in almost all the litigations and in spite of him having already faced about 17 long litigative proceedings._ _12. Now, the counsel for the petitioner would point out that, another third party has been set up very recently to impugn Anx.A-1 judgment, by filing a third party appeal, in spite of long delay._ _13. This Court is not concerned with those matters. Suffice to say, that, this Court has held in quite a few cases, especially in Contempt cases, that, where the judgment which is sought to be complied with has become final and conclusive and there is no review or appeal, etc., and the judgment has not been interdicted or altered in the manner known to law, then the learned Advocates appearing for the respondents concerned has a duty, flowing out of his duty to the Court and to the legal system, to advise the party to comply with the judgment. As an Advocate for a party, he has duties and obligations not only to his party, but also to the public at large as well as to this Court._ _14. This Court queried to Sri.Georgekutty Mathew, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Grama Panchayat, as to whether he has advised the parties concerned to comply with the specific and clear-cut directions in Anx.A-1 judgment._ _15. To this, Sri.Georgekutty Mathew, learned Standing Counsel, would submit that, he has already advised the respondent Grama Panchayat authorities to comply with the directions of this Court._ Cont. Case (C) No.584 of 2023 8 ## _16. The said submissions of the abovesaid counsel are recorded._ _17. In the light of the abovesaid stand taken by the SEIAA, it is only to be noted that the petitioner can now proceed forward as all other permissions are granted to him, including Anx.A-5 and Anx.R-2(a)._ _18. Sri.V.K.Prasad, learned counsel appearing for R-2 (Panchayat Secretary), would also submit that the requisite trade license in terms of Sec.232 has already been granted to the petitioner, as per Anx.A-7 proceedings dated 28.2.2023. Further, the counsel for R-2 would submit that R-2 has placed Anx.R-2(a) before the Panchayat Committee and the Committee has taken the stand that they will comply with the judgment, if this Court so directs them._ _19. In the light of these aspects, this Court is inclined to adjourn the case, to ascertain as to whether the panchayat authorities, consisting of the members of the panchayat committee, are now willing to comply with the directions in Anx.A-1 judgment, through their decision._ _List the case at 1.20 P.M. in the Chambers on 11.4.2023.”_ ## 4. Further, the order dated 11.04.2023 passed by this Court in ## this case reads as follows : _“Today when the matter has been taken up for consideration, it is submitted on behalf of the 1st respondent–President of Thalappalam Grama Panchayat that, the Panchayat Committee has now passed Resolution No. 1/1 on 10.4.2023 in their meeting, wherein it has been inter alia decided that the directions and orders passed by this Court in Anx.A1 judgment, rendered as early as on 27.5.2020 in WP(C).No.5897/2020, will be complied with by the Panchayat Committee. It is submitted on behalf of the 1 st respondentPanchayat President that, necessary instructions and directives will be given to the 2nd respondent-Panchayat Secretary to issue a revised proceedings in lieu of Anx.R-2(a) Establishment Permit, in favour of the petitioner._ _2. The counsel for the 2nd respondent-Panchayat Secretary would submit that, in the light of the abovesaid decision, the 2nd respondentPanchayat Secretary will issue revised proceedings in lieu of Anx.R-2(a), granting Establishment Permit in terms of Sec.233 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act and also, taking note of the submissions made on behalf of the State Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA), Kerala, through their learned Standing Counsel, on the previous day (3.4.2023). The counsel for the 2nd respondent-Panchayat Secretary submits that, the case may be adjourned so that revised proceedings in lieu of Anx.R-2(a) Establishment Permit can be issued and copy of the same could be produced before this Court and copy of the same could also be given in advance to the petitioner and his counsel._ Cont. Case (C) No.584 of 2023 9 _3. The counsel for the 1st respondent-Panchayat President will ensure that copy of the above resolution dated 10.4.2023 is served on Sri.Joby Jose Kondody, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri.V.K.Prasad, learned counsel for the 2nd respondentPanchayat Secretary and Sri.M.P.Sreekrishnan, learned Standing Counsel for SEIAA, Kerala, today itself._ _List the case on 23.5.2023 at 1.20 P.M. in the Chambers.”_ 5. Today when the matter has been taken up for consideration, Sri.Jobi Jose Kondody, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the directions and orders passed by this Court in Annexure-A1 judgment has been complied with and Annexure-R2(b) resolution dated 10.04.2023 has been passed by the respondent-Panchayath Committee and consequential Annexure-R2(c) order No.400497/RPTL19/General/2023/390(1a) dated 25.04.2023 has also been passed by the Secretary of the respondent-Panchayth. Annexure-R2(b) resolution dated 10.04.2023 passed by the respondent-Panchayath Committee reads as follows : "ബഹ�മ�നപ�ട ക�രള ഹഹക��ടത�യ�പട 27/05/2020 പ� WP (C ) No.5897 of 2020 (J ) നമർ വ�ധ� പ�����നത�മ�യ� ബനപ�ട� ബഹ�. ക�രള ഹഹക��ടത� മ�മ�പ�യ�ള Contempt of the Court Case Civil No.584 of 2023(S) ബഹ�മ�നപ�ട ക�രള ഹഹക��ടത�യ�പട 27/05/2020 പ� WP(C) No.5897 of 2020(J) നമർ വ�ധ� നട������നത� എന�വ സ!ബന�ച� പഞ�യത� �മറ� വ�ശദമ�യ� ചർച പചയ+� . ഇത�മ�യ� ബനപ�ട� ഹഹക��ടത���ണ�യ അത/പ+�യ�ൽ ന�ര�പ�ധ��! മ��� കച�ദ���നത�ന�! ബഹ�മ�നപ�ട ക�രള ഹഹക��ടത�യ�പട 27/05/2020 പ� WP(C)No.5897 of 2020(J) നമർ ഉതരവ� നട������നത�ന�! ത���! ഗ4�മപഞ�യത� �മറ� ഐ��കണന ത6ര�മ�ന�ച� . �7ട�പത ഇത�മ�യ� ബനപ�ട� അ�6ൽ നടപട��ൾ നൽ��നത� പര�4ണ���നത� സ!ബന�ച� പര�കശ�ധ���നത�ന� അട�ത �മറ�യ�ൽ അജണ വച� ചർച പചയ�നത�ന�! ത6ര�മ�ന�ച� .” 6. The aforesaid Annexure-R2(c) order dated 25.04.2023 Cont. Case (C) No.584 of 2023 10 passed by the Secretary of the respondent-Panchayath reads as follows: ## _“_ _**Proceedings of the Secretary Thalappalam Grama Panchayat**_ ## _**(Present Rajeev.R)**_ _Sub: Permission Of Installation Of Machinery_ _Ref: (1) Application of Sri.Tomy Thomas, Pulickal, Kalathukadavu dt.03/12/2019 under Section 233(2A) for permission for installtion of machinery in the property in survey Nos.247/2, 247/2-1, 247/2-2, 247/2-3, 249/1, 249/2, 249/3, 249/4, 439/1-1, 248/4, 248/3pt in Erattupetta Village_ - _(2) Order No.400497/RPTL19/General/2023/390(1) dt. 25/03/2023 of the Secretary Thalappalam Grama Panchayat_ ## _**Order No.400497/RPTL 19/General/2023/390(1a) dated 25/04/2023**_ _In compliance of the Judgement dated 27/05/2020 of the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in WP(C)No.5897/2020(J) and the Order dated 11/04/2023 of the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in Contempt case (C) no.584 of 2023(S) and in the light of the Resolution No.1/1 dated 10/04/2023 of Thalappalam Gramapanchayat Committee t implement the Judgement dated 27/05/2020 of the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in WP(C) 5897/2020(J), revised permission in lieu of permission cited in Reference (2) is here by granted to Sri Tomy Thomas Pulickal Kalthukadavu for installation of machinery having capacity of 670 HP for quarrying activities in the property in Survey Nos.247/2, 247/2-1, 247/2-2, 247/2-3, 249/1, 249/2, 249/3, 249/4, 439/1-1, 248/4, 248/3pt in Erattupetta village as specified in the application cited in Reference (1).”_ ## 7. Further, it is stated that by Annexure-R2(d) order dated ## 29.04.2023, the Committee has ratified the order dated 25.04.2023 passed by the respondent-Secretary. ## 8. Annexure-R2(d) proceedings reads as follows : _"_ ബഹ� _._ ക�രള ഹഹക��ടത�യ�പട _27 / 05 / 2020_ പ� _WP (C ) No . 5897 of 2020 (J)_ നമർ വ�ധ� നട������നത�ന� ഐ��കണന ത6ര�മ�ന�ച�പ��ണ�ള _10/04/ 2023_ ത6യത�യ�പ� _1 / 1_ നമർ പഞ�യത� ത6ര�മ�നത�പ< അട�സ�നത�ൽ ഗശ6 കട�മ� കത�മസ� പ�ള��ൽ �ളത7�ടവ� എനയ�ൾ�� ട�യ�ള�പട _03/12/2019_ പ� �ര�ങൽ ഖനന! പചയ+� വ�ൽ��നത�ന�ള ഹ�സൻസ� അകപകയ�ൽ ഗ4�മപഞ�യത� Cont. Case (C) No.584 of 2023 11 പസഗ�ടറ� നൽ��യ _25/04/2023_ ത6യത�യ�പ� _400497 / RPTL 19 /General/2023/390(1a)_ നമർ സ�പന ഹ�സൻസ� അ!46�ര�ച� ത6ര�മ�ന�ച� _.”_ 9. Hence, the learned Advocates appearing for the respondents would also submit that the directions and orders passed by this Court in the above judgment has been fully complied with. Accordingly, both sides submit that the contempt of court case may be closed. Recording the submissions of both sides, the above Contempt of Court Case, will stand disposed of. **Sd/ALEXANDER THOMAS JUDGE** vgd Cont. Case (C) No.584 of 2023 12 ## **APPENDIX OF CON.CASE(C) 584/2023** ## **PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES** **ANNEXURE A1 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 27.05.2020 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WP(C) NO. 5897/2020** **ANNEXURE A2 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 10.08.2020 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN W.P.(C) NO. 14072/2020** - **ANNEXURE A3 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON JUDGMENT DATED 22.10.2020 PASSED BY THE LEARNED DIVISION BENCH OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN W.A NO. 1392/2020 AND 1393/2020** - **ANNEXURE A4 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 06/12/2021 PASSED BY THE SPECIAL BENCH OF THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL IN OA NO. 76/2021(SZ) (IA NO.147/2021(SZ))** **ANNEXURE A5 A TRUE COPY OF THE A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 28.10.2022 ISSUED BY THE SEIAA, KERALA TO THE PETITIONER** **ANNEXURE A6 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 15.02.2023 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER ANNEXURE A7 A TRUE COPY OF THE TRADE LICENSE ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT HEREIN TO THE PETITIONER DATED 28.02.2023** Cont. Case (C) No.584 of 2023 13 ## **RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES** **ANNEXURE R2(A) A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. 400497/RPTL19/GENERAL/2023/390(1) DATED 25.03.2023. ANNEXURE R2(B) A TRUE COPY OF THE RESOLUTION DATED 10.04.2023. ANNEXURE R2(C) A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 25.04.2023. ANNEXURE R2(D) A TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION NO.17/1 DATED 29.04.2023.**