High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeWrit petition disposed of with directions; rene...

M/S.Thadikkaran Crusher Metals Kombanad v. The Secretary, Vengoor Grama Panchayat, Vengoor Grama Panchayat, M.K. Gopi, District Geologist, Kerala Department of Mining & Geology, The Assistant Engineer, PH Section, Kerala Water Authority, The Assistant Engineer, Minor Irrigation Section, Perumbavoor, The Executive Engineer, Periyar Valley Irrigation Project

Case / Petition Number:WP(C).No.10079 of 2020(H)

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • Alexander Thomas
Judgment Date
2020-05-22
Court Decision / Holding
The 1st respondent-Secretary of Vengoor Grama Panchayat will consider the renewal application for 2020-21 as per Ext.P14, provide reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and the 3rd respondent, and pass orders within three weeks of producing a certified copy of the judgment. The court clarifies that if the petitioner has secured all necessary licenses and permissions, the 1st respondent shall not deny renewal on hypertechnical grounds, but issues arising from complaints shall be addressed under Sec.233 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act. The writ petition is finally disposed of with these directions.
Final Disposition
Writ petition disposed of with directions; renewal to be considered under Ext.P14 within three weeks with hearing; complaints to be addressed under Sec.233 as applicable; if all permissions exist, renewal should not be delayed on hypertechnical grounds.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • M/S.Thadikkaran Crusher Metals Kombanad

Respondents

  • The Secretary, Vengoor Grama Panchayat
  • Vengoor Grama Panchayat
  • M.K. Gopi
  • The District Geologist, Ernakulam, Dept. of Mining & Geology
  • The Assistant Engineer, PH Section, Kerala Water Authority
  • The Assistant Engineer, Minor Irrigation Section, Perumbavoor
  • The Executive Engineer, Periyar Valley Irrigation Project

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • Sri. Philip J. Vettickattu

Counsels for Respondents

  • • Sri K.J. Manuraj, Govt Pleader (for respondents 4, 6 & 7)
  • • Standing Counsel for Kerala Water Authority (for respondent 5)

Case Synopsis & Summary

The petitioner, M/S.Thadikkaran Crusher Metals Kombanad, operates a quarry at Kombanad, Mudakuzha, Ernakulam, with a valid quarrying permit valid till 15.09.2020, environmental clearance, consent to operate from the Pollution Control Board, an Explosive License, and a trade license issued by the Secretary of Vengoor Grama Panchayat. The petitioner submitted Ext.P-14 for renewal for 2020-21 on 07.02.2020. No defects were noted in Ext.P-14, and no intimation of rejection was issued, yet challenges arose due to complaints raised by contesting respondent No.3. The petitioner contends that under Sec.236(3) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, the renewal application should crystallize into a deemed license after 30 days if not acted upon, and that Rule 10 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Rules, 1996 requires renewal upon meeting conditions and obtaining permissions from competent authorities. Citing Tomy Thomas v. State of Kerala (FB) and Abdul Kharim v. Pazhayakunnummel Grama Panchayath (FB), he argues that the Secretary’s discretion to refuse renewal is severely limited when all statutory approvals exist. The court directed the 1st respondent to consider Ext.P14, grant a fair hearing to the petitioner and the 3rd respondent, and decide within three weeks, clarifying that complaints must be dealt with under Sec.233 as applicable. The writ petition is disposed with directions.

Provisions of Law Cited

Sec.236(3) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994Sec.233A of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994Rule 10 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj (issue of License to Factories, Trades, Entrepreneurship Activities and Other Services) Rules, 1996Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2015

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

  • Deemed license by operation of law under Sec.236(3) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994
  • Discretion of the Grama Panchayat Secretary to refuse such licenses is extremely limited after amendments (as per Tomy Thomas v. State of Kerala)
  • Where all competent statutory authorities have granted permissions, the Panchayat Secretary cannot deny renewal without due process (as clarified by Tomy Thomas and Abdul Kharim)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner contends that having obtained a quarrying permit, environmental clearance, consent to operate, explosive license and a trade license for the year 2019-20, Ext.P14 for renewal dated 07.02.2020 should be considered as a renewal for 2020-21. No defects were noted in Ext.P14, and there was no intimation of rejection within 30 days, making the renewal arise by operation of law as a deemed license under Sec.236(3) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act and Rule 10 of the Rules under the Act. The petitioner relies on Tomy Thomas (FB) and Abdul Kharim (FB) to contend that the Panchayat Secretary’s discretion to refuse renewal is extremely limited when all statutory permissions exist. It is urged that any bonafide complaints should be dealt with under Sec.233 and should not delay renewal. The court is urged to direct the 1st respondent to renew the license and refrain from hypertechnical delays pending clearance of complaints.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents contend that there are complaints about the petitioner's unit deserving inquiry or action under Sec.233, and that renewal must be considered within the statutory framework. While the 1st respondent is required to consider Ext.P14, the authority must ensure due process and assess the Bona fide complaints. They emphasize that Sec.233A and other regulations govern the due process for dealing with complaints and potential actions against the unit, and that renewal cannot be automatically granted solely on the basis of deemed license where procedural or substantive requirements remain unresolved.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
Tomy Thomas v. State of Kerala2019 (3) KLT 987 (FB)PositiveFull Bench held that after amendments the Secretary’s discretion to refuse such trade licenses is extremely limited when all statutory permissions exist.
Abdul Kharim v. Pazhayakunnummel Grama Panchayath2018 (4) KLT 1086 (FB)PositiveFull Bench addressed deemed license issues after the 30-day period and related implications for renewal.
W.P(C)NO.15864/2019W.P(C) No.15864/2019 (This Hon’ble Court)Mentioned OnlyExhibit; cited as a decision of this Court, not a binding authority cited in the body’s reasoning.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against M/S.Thadikkaran Crusher Metals Kombanad v. The Secretary, Vengoor Grama Panchayat, Vengoor Grama Panchayat, M.K. Gopi, District Geologist, Kerala Department of Mining & Geology, The Assistant Engineer, PH Section, Kerala Water Authority, The Assistant Engineer, Minor Irrigation Section, Perumbavoor, The Executive Engineer, Periyar Valley Irrigation Project and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS** **FRIDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF MAY 2020 / 1ST JYAISHTA, 1942** ## **WP(C).No.10079 OF 2020(H)** ## **PETITIONER:** **M/S.THADIKKARAN CRUSHER METALS KOMBANAD,MUDAKUZHA,ERNAKULAM-683546, REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER,SRI.BIJU.C.M.** **BY ADV. SRI.PHILIP J.VETTICKATTU** ## **RESPONDENTS:** - **1 THE SECRETARY, VENGOOR GRAMA PANCHAYAT VENGOOR GRAMA PANCHAYAT,VENGOOR.P.O, KURUPPAMPADI VIA,ERNAKULAM-683546.** - **2 VENGOOR GRAMA PANCHAYAT, VENGOOR.P.O, KURUPPAMPADI VIA, ERNAKULAM-683546,REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.** - **3 SRI.M.K.GOPI,MUDASSERYKUDI, KOMBANAD,MUNIPPARA, VENGOOR,ERNAKULAM-683546.** - **4 THE DISTRICT GEOLOGIST, ERNAKULAM,DEPARTMENT OF MINING & GEOLOGY, CIVIL STATION,KAKKANAD-682030.** - **5 THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, PH SECTION,KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, KURUPPAMPADI,ERNAKULAM-683545.** - **6 THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, MINOR IRRIGATION SECTION,PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM-683542.** - **7 THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PERIYAR VALLEY IRRIGATION PROJECT, DIVISION NO.1,PERUMBAVOOR,IRINGOL.P.O, PATTAL-683548.** **SC,KWA SRI.K.J.MANU RAJ, GOVT.PLEADER** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22.05.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** W.P(C)No.10079 of 2020 2 # **ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.** ## **=========================== W.P(C)No.10079 of 2020** **===========================** Dated this the 22[nd] day of May, 2020 ## **JUDGMENT** The case set up in this Writ Petition (Civil) is as follows: The petitioner is a grantee of quarrying permit, which is valid upto 15.09.2020 (Ext.P-1). The petitioner is also having the Enviornmental Clearance, consent to operate from the Pollution Control Board, Explosive License and license issued by the Secretary to the Grama Panchayat (Exts.P-2 to P-7). The petitioner had submitted application (Ext.P-15) for renewal of Panchayat license as early as on 07.02.2020. The respondent had not notified any defect with respect to the application. The petitioner was not issued with any intimation notifying that the said application is either rejected/returned/dismissed within 30 days from the date of submission of the application. In such circumstances, the application for renewal of license has been crystalized into a deemed license by operation of law as contemplated under Sec.236(3) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994. Further in view of Rule 10 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj (issue of License to Factories, Trades, Entrepreneurship Activities and Other Services) Rules, 1996, it is mandatory to the Secretary of the Panchayat to W.P(C)No.10079 of 2020 3 renew an existing license. The petitioner was having an existing license till 31.03.2020. It is in the light of these averments and contentions, the petitioner has filed the instant Writ Petition (Civil) with the following prayers: - _“i) Issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order directing the 1[st] respondent to issue a certificate of renewed license with respect to the quarrying unit of the petitioner, for the period for which applied for, forthwith;_ - _ii) Issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order directing the respondents not to interfere with the quarrying operations of the petitioner;_ _and_ - _iii) To grant such other reliefs as this Hon'ble Court may deem just and fit in the circumstances of the case.”_ 2. Heard Sri.Philip J.Vettickattu, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri.K.J.Manuraj, learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents 4, 6 & 7 and the learned Standing Counsel for the Kerala Water Authority appearing for the 5[th] respondent. In the nature of the orders proposed to be passed in this Writ Petition, notices to respondents 1 & 2 (Vengoor Grama Panchayat) and contesting respondent No.3 will stand dispensed with. 3. The specific case of the petitioner is that he has been conducting a quarry after obtaining permit from the Mining and Geology Department in terms of the provisions contained in the Kerala Minor W.P(C)No.10079 of 2020 4 Mineral Concession Rules, 2015 and after obtaining environmental clearance and also after securing all necessary permission from all the competent authorities concerned. Further that, the petitioner has also secured the formal trade license for conducting the quarry from the 1[st] respondent-Secretary of the Vengoor Grama Panchayat in the previous years and Ext.P-2 is the copy of the renewed license granted in favour of the petitioner's unit by the 1[st] respondent-Panchayat for the year 2019-20. 4. The petitioner has submitted Ext.P-14 application dated 07.02.2020 before the 1[st] respondent-Secretary of the Panchayat for renewing the said license for the year 2020-21 and that no defects have been noted thereon in the said application by the 1[st] respondent and no effective action has been taken thereon. That the petitioner has now come to know that the 1[st] respondent is not acting upon Ext.P-14 application merely because contesting respondent No.3 has raised certain complaints against the petitioner's unit. The petitioner would contend that Sec.233A of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 regulates the specific statutory procedure for dealing with such complaint and that mere pendency of a complaint cannot be the ground for delayed consideration or denial of the renewal of the license by the Panchayat authorities. Further that, in terms of the mandate contained in Sec.236(3) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, the petitioner is deemed to have secured the benefit of the renewed license W.P(C)No.10079 of 2020 5 on the expiry of 30 days period from the submission of Ext.P-2 renewal application on 07.02.2020 and that therefore the petitioner should be treated who have secured the deemed license on 06.03.2020 by the mandatory clause of Sec.233 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act and Rule 10 of the Rules framed under the Panchayat Raj Act regulating the grant of such licenses. 5. Further, the learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance on the recent decision rendered by the Full Bench of this Court in the case in _**Tomy Thomas v. State of Kerala**_ [2019 (3) KLT 987 (FB)], whereby the Full Bench after considering the provisions of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act has held that after the amendments made thereto, the discretion of the Secretary of the Grama Panchayat to refuse such a trade license, is extremely limited and in a case where all the competent statutory authorities concerned have given their permissions, licenses, etc. to the unit operatives concerned for the conduct of his unit, then the Secretary of the Grama Panchayat will not have the discretion or the competence to refuse or deny the grant or renewal of such licenses. Further that, if at all the Panchayat Secretary has received any bonafide complaints regarding the functioning of the units, it is for the Panchayat Secretary to forward such complaints to the statutory authorities concerned for effective action to ascertain as to the correctness of the allegations and to take further W.P(C)No.10079 of 2020 6 action thereon by the competent statutory authorities concerned, etc. 6. The petitioner would also place reliance on the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in _**Abdul Kharim v. Pazhayakunnummel Grama Panchayath**_ [2018 (4) KLT 1086 (FB)], which has dealt with the issue regarding grant of deemed license after the expiry of 30 days period from the date of submission of the application for grant of license or renewal of license, etc. 7. Taking note of the facts and circumstances of the case, it is ordered that the 1[st] respondent-Secretary of the Vengoor Grama Panchayat will take up for consideration the application submitted by the petitioner for renewal of his trade license for the year 2020-21 as per Ext.P14 dated 07.02.2020, without any further delay and after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and the 3[rd] respondent, will pass orders thereon, without much delay, at any rate, within a period of three weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this judgment. While doing so, the 1[st] respondent-Secretary will adverted to the abovesaid specific contentions raised by the petitioner that he has already secured the deemed license in view of Sec.236 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act and that since he has secured the necessary license and permission from all the competent authorities concerned for the running of the quarry, the 1[st] respondent-Secretary of the Grama Panchayat does not have any jurisdiction to deny the renewal of the license, in view of the dictum laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in **Tomy Thomas's case** (supra) [2019 (3) KLT W.P(C)No.10079 of 2020 7 987 (FB)]. This Court is confronted with cases large number of cases of this nature inspite of the legal position clarified with all visibility by the Full Bench judgment of this Court as aforecited and so long as the petitioner has secured all the valid licenses and permissions from the competent statutory authority concerned for the running of his quarry, the 1[st] respondent-Secretary of the Grama Panchayat shall not prolong the agony of the petitioner on hypertechnical grounds. However, it is made clear that if there are any complaints from the 3[rd] respondent, the 1[st] respondent-Secretary of the Grama Panchayat will be certainly at liberty to deal with such issues in the manner prescribed in terms of Sec.233 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act for dealing with such complaints. 8. The petitioner shall produce certified copy of this judgment along with a copy of the Memorandum of this W.P(C) along with all the exhibits to the 1[st] respondent, for necessary information and further action. Registry will forward copy of this judgment to contesting respondent No.3, at the cost of the petitioner. With these observations and directions the above Writ Petition (Civil) will stand finally disposed of . **Sd/-** **ALEXANDER THOMAS JUDGE** vgd W.P(C)No.10079 of 2020 8 ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE QAURRYING PERMIT DATED 16.9.2019 ISSUED BY THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE LICENSE ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT,DATED 29.3.2019,WHICH WAS VALID UP TO 31-3-2020** **EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE CONSENT TO THE OPERATE,DATED 22.2.2018, WHICH IS VALID UP TO 22.1.2021 EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF EXPLOSIVE LICENSE DATED 19.3.2018,ISSUED BY THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY,WHICH IS VALID UP TO 31.3.2021 EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF RELEVANT PAGES OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL CLEARANCE ISSUED BY THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY DATED 23.1.2018 EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF PROCEEDINGS OF THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PERIYAR VALLEY IRRIGATION PROJECT(PVIP)DIVISION NO.1, PERUMBAVOOR, ISSUING NOC FOR CONDUCTING BLASTING OPERATION DT.10.7.2019 EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF CERTIFICATE OF COMPETENCY OF THE PERSON WHO IS APPOINTED AS MINING MATE IN THE PETITIONER'S QUARRYING UNIT DT.27.2.2017 EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT IN W.P(C)NO.15864/2019 DATED 29.11.2019 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 25-11-2019 EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF REPLY SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DT.13.3.2020 EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF QUESTIONNAIRE SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DT.13.3.2020 AND THE REPLY ISSUED BY THE ASST.ENGINEER, MINOR IRRIGATION, PERUMBAVOOR,DT.17.3.2020** W.P(C)No.10079 of 2020 9 ## **EXHIBIT P12** **EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF QUESTIONNAIRE SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DT.13.3.2020 AND THE REPLY ISSUED BY THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER, PVIP DIVISION NO.1, PERUMBAVOOR, DT.29.4.2020. EXHIBIT P13 TRUE COPY OF THE QUESTIONNAIRE SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DT.13.3.2020 AND THE REPLY ISSUED BY THE ASST.ENGINEER,KERALA WATER AUTHORITY DATED 16.3.2020** **EXHIBIT P14 TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 7.2.2020 FOR RENEWAL OF LICENSE ALONG WITH COVERING LETTER AND RECEIPT SHOWING ACCEPTANCE OF APPLICATION** **EXHIBIT P15 TRUE COPY OF COMMUNICATION FROM THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER,DT.12.5.2020 EXHIBIT P16 TRUE COPY OF COMPLAINT WHICH WAS FORWARDED ALONG WITH EXT.P15,DATED 26.4.2020.**