K.A. Kochu Makkaar v. District Collector, Ernakulam; Vengola Grama Panchayat, represented by its Secretary; Revenue Divisional Officer, Muvattupuzha; Kerala State Pollution Contorl Board, represented by its Executive Engineer; Jafar Khan

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR** **WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF JANUARY 2017/21ST POUSHA, 19382017** **WP(C).No. 1422 of 2016 (C)** **---------------------------** **PETITIONER(S): -------------** **K.A.KOCHU MAKKAR, S/O.ABU, KAARUVILLIL HOUSE, PERUMAANI VENGOLA.** ## **BY ADV. SRI.P.DEEPAK** **RESPONDENT(S): --------------** **1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM-682030.** **2. THE VENGOLA GRAMA PANCHAYAT REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,VENGOLA P.O. - 682 035.** **3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, MUVATTUPUZHA - 686 661.** **4. KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTORL BOARD, REPRESENTED BY THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, DISTRICT OFFICE (ERNAKULAM-II), 1ST FLOOR, MANNA RESIDENCY, M.C.ROAD,** **PERUMBAVOOR - 683 103.** **5. JAFAR KHAN, KARUVILLI HOUSE, VENGOLA P.O., KUNNATHUNADU - 683 115.** **R2 BY ADV. SRI.C.A.NAVAS R2 BY ADV. SRI.P.A.SHAJI SAMAD R2 BY ADV. SRI.T.K.SASIKUMAR R2 BY ADV. SRI.C.J.SOLOMAN R2 BY ADV. SMT.E.G.AMBILY R4 BY ADV. SRI. T.NAVEEN SC, KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, R5 BY ADV. SRI.S.SREEKUMAR (SR.) R5 BY ADV. SRI.PRAVEEN K. JOY R BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.MANU RAJ R BY SRI. M.AJAY, SC, KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BO** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11-01-2017, ALONG WITH W.P.(C).NO.27237/2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **//TRUE COPY//** **P.A.TO JUDGE** **sm** **WP(C).No. 1422 of 2016 (C) ---------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** **PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS -----------------------** **P1: A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 22/12/2011 IN WPC NO.27855/2011** **P2: A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 18/01/2012 IN W.A NO.41/2012** **P3: A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 15/1/2014** **P4: A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 3/2/2014 IN WPC NO.2913 OF 2014** **P5: A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 25/4/2014 IN WPC NO.11362 OF 2014** **P6: A TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION OF THE SECRETARY, VENGOLA GRAMA PANCHAYAT DATED 16/6/2014** **P7: A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 3/9/2014 IN WPC NO.21102 OF 2014** **P8: A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON JUDGMENT DATED 26/5/2015 IN WPC NO.2913 OF 2014** **P9: A TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED 19/12/2015 ADDRESSED TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT WITH ACKNOWLEDGEMENT** **P10: TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 23/12/2015 ADDRESSED TO THE 5TH RESPONDENT** **P11: TRUE COPY OF THE STOP MEMO DATED 9/12/2015 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT PANCHAYAT** **RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS -----------------------** ## **A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, J.** - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - **W.P.(C) Nos. 1422 & 27237 of 2016** - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 11[th] day of January, 2017 ## **JUDGMENT** As the issue involved in both these writ petitions is the same, they are taken up together for consideration, and disposed by this common judgment. For the sake of convenience, the reference to facts and exhibits is from W.P.(C) No.27237of 2016. 2. The petitioner in W.P.(C).No.27237/2016 is the owner of a plywood industry under the name and style of M/s.Perfect Plywoods. It is stated that, the petitioner has got a consent to operate, from the Kerala State Pollution Control Board, and the said consent is valid till 30.06.2018. Ext.P3 is the consent issued to the petitioner by the Pollution Control Board. The petitioner had applied for renewal of trade license from the Panchayath, but the same was not processed by the respondent Panchayath. The petitioner has therefore approached this Court through the presnt writ petition, aggrieved by the delay occasioned by the Panchayath Authorities in granting a renewal of the license. It is stated that the license originally issued to the petitioner was the subject matter of litigation before this Court and the said litigation ultimately W.P.(c).Nos. 1422 & 27237 of 2016 : 2 : culminated in Ext.P4 order dated 19.04.2016 of the District Collector, whereby the District Collector found that the land belonging to the petitioner, and on which the plywood industry was set up, was not land covered under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land & Wetland Act & Rules 2008, and therefore, the earlier order of the District Collector dated 11.10.2011, under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, which had the effect of permitting the petitioner to convert the land and use it for other purposes, would revive. It is stated that, based on Ext.P4 order of the District Collector, the petitioner was entitled to a renewal of trade license for the year 2016-17, and inasmuch as the petitioner had filed the application for the licence, and the same was received by the respondent Panchayath on 15.07.2016, on the expiry of 30 days from the said date, the petitioner was entitled to assume that a deemed license under Section 236(3) of the Panchayath Raj Act had been granted in his favour. The prayer in the writ petition is essentially for a direction to the 2[nd] respondent Panchayath to grant the petitioner a deemed license in physical format, following the dictum in **Sudhakaran v. Pallichal Grama Panchayath [2016(2) KLT 175]** . W.P.(c).Nos. 1422 & 27237 of 2016 : 3 : 3. The 3[rd] respondent in the writ petition is the petitioner in W.P.(C).No.1422/2016. In the latter writ petition, the prayer of the 3[rd] respondent is essentially for a direction to the respondent Panchayath to implement Ext.P11 stop memo, that had been earlier issued to the petitioner in W.P.(C).No.27237/2016. The documents produced in the writ petition would indicate that, while Ext.P11 order of the respondent Panchayath had directed the petitioner in W.P.(C).No.27237/2016 to stop his activities, inter alia on the ground that there was no valid license issued to him to carry out the said activities, by another order dated 15.12.2015 (produced as Ext.P12 in W.P.(C).No.27237/2016), the earlier order (Ext.P11) was cancelled. In this connection, it must be noted that, although in W.P.(C).No.1422/2016, an interim order (produced as Ext.P13 in W.P.(C).No.27237/2016) was passed directing respondents 1 and 3 to enforce Ext.P11 stop memo against the petitioner in W.P.(C). No.27237/2016, the said interim order can have no legal effect after the passing of Ext.P12 order, which cancelled Ext.P11 order that was directed to be implemented by the interim order aforementioned. It is also relevant to note that, with the passing of Ext.P12 order, the prayers sought for in W.P.(C).No.1422/2016 itself have become incapable of being granted, and hence W.P.(C). W.P.(c).Nos. 1422 & 27237 of 2016 : 4 : No.1422/2016 has necessarily to be dismissed as infructuous. 4. Coming to the prayers sought for in W.P.(C). No.27237/2016, I find, as noted above, that pursuant to Ext.P4 order of the District Collector, which clearly finds that the lands belonging to the petitioner are not lands coming under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land & Wetland Act & Rules 2008, and the earlier order dated 11.10.2011 of the District Collector that granted the petitioner the necessary permission for converting the land for use for other purposes, in accordance with the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, the license application preferred by the petitioner before the respondent Panchayath has necessarily to be considered, on the basis that the lands belonging to the petitioner are lands suitable for setting up the plywood industry. It is also not disputed by the respondent Panchayath that the application submitted by the petitioner, for renewal of the license for the year 2016-17, was supported by all necessary documents required for processing the same. As a matter of fact, by efflux of the time stipulated in Section 236(3) of the Panchayath Raj Act, the petitioner is to be treated as a deemed licensee with effect from 15.08.2016. I also note that, the decision of this Court in W.P.(c).Nos. 1422 & 27237 of 2016 : 5 : ## **Sudhakaran v. Pallichal Grama Panchayath [2016(2) KLT** **175]** clearly finds that, 'in respect of an industrial unit which may require other permissions/licences from various statutory authorities and credit facilities from Bank etc., on the request of the applicant, the Secretary of the Panchayath would have to certify whether the unit is operating with a deemed license or not. Even in the absence of a licence in the prescribed format, on the request of the applicants, the Secretary of the Panchayath may have to issue appropriate certificate to enable the applicant to utilise the same for other statutory permissions/licences and even to produce the same before the financial institutions for availing necessary credit facilities.' The tenor of the said judgment would clearly mandate that, in a case such as the present, where the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of Section 236(3) of the Panchayath Raj Act, it would be incumbent upon the Secretary of the respondent Panchayath to issue a certificate indicating that the unit in question is operating under a deemed license. 5. Resultantly, I allow W.P.(C).No.27237/2016 and direct the 2[nd] respondent to issue a certificate to the petitioner, stating that the unit of the petitioner is currently operating under a deemed W.P.(c).Nos. 1422 & 27237 of 2016 : 6 : licence in terms of Section 236(3) of the Kerala Panchayath Raj Act. The 2[nd] respondent shall do the needful to issue the certificate to the petitioner, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Thus, Writ Petition No. 27237/2016 is allowed, and Writ Petition No. 1422/2016 dismissed as infructuous. Sd/- **A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE** sm/