President, Muthuthala Grama Panchayat v. State of Kerala and others

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN** **MONDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2019 / 27TH KARTHIKA, 1941** # **WP(C).No.29449 OF 2019(E)** ## **PETITIONER:** **PRESIDENT, MUTHUTHALA GRAMA PANCHAYAT, MUTHUTHALA GRAMA PANCHAAYAT, REPRESENTING THE PANCHAYAT COMMITTEE, MUTHUTHALA, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.** **BY ADVS. SRI.SANTHEEP ANKARATH SMT.C.K.SHERIN** ## **RESPONDENTS:** - **1 THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF MINING AND GEOLOGY, SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.** - **2 SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA,SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.** - **3 KERALA STATE ENVIRONMENT IMPACT ASSESSMENT AUTHORITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN,DEVI KRIPA, PALLIMUKKU,PETTAH.P.O,TRIVANDRUM-695024.** - **4 DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CIVIL STATION,PALAKKAD-678001.** - **5 THE GEOLOGIST, DISTRICT OFFICE,DEPARTMENT OF MINING AND GEOLOGY, MUNICIPAL SHOPPING COMPLEX, T.B.ROAD, PALAKKAD-678014.** - **6 SECRETARY, MUTHUTHALA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, MUTHUTHALA.P.O,VIA.PATTAMBI, PALAKKAD DISTRICT,P/IN-679303.** WP(C).No.29449 OF 2019 -2- **7 NAJEEB, S/O KUNHI MARAKKAR HAJI, NAMBRATH HOUSE, VALANCHERRY.P.O, MALAPPURAM-676552.** **R6 BY ADV. SRI.R.SREEHARI R7 BY ADV. SRI.ENOCH DAVID SIMON JOEL SRI. M.P.SREEKRISHNAN, SC , SRI. MANURAJ K.J. GP** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18.11.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** WP(C).No.29449 OF 2019 -3- ## **JUDGMENT** **Dated this the 18th day of November 2019** The petitioner, who is stated to be the President of Muthuthala Grama Panchayat, has approached this Court seeking that the 4[th] respondent - District Collector and the 6[th] respondent - Secretay of the said Grama Panchayat be directed not to allow the operation of a granite quarry by the 7[th] respondent. He also prays that his representation, namely Ext.P10, preferred before the State Environmental Impact Assessment Authority ('SEIAA' for short) be directed to be taken up and disposed of, since the 7[th] respondent is acting in violation of the terms of the Environmental Clearance issued to him. 2. The learned Senior Counsel Sri.Bechu Kurian Thomas, instructed by Sri.Enoch WP(C).No.29449 OF 2019 -4- David Simon Joel, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that this writ petition is not maintainable because the President of the Panchayat has approached this Court seeking that its Secretary be directed not to take statutory action as is enjoined upon him under the provisions of law. The learned Senior Counsel says that going by the judgment of this Court in ## _**Tommy Thomas v. State of Kerala**_ [2019 (3) KLT 987], the President or any other Authority of the Panchayat cannot intervene with the lawful exercise of jurisdiction by the Secretary; and, therefore, that this writ petition be dismissed as being not maintainable. As regards the complaint preferred by the petitioner, namely Ext.P10, before the SEIAA is concerned, the learned Senior Counsel says that the same is also not deserving of being directed to be considered, because there is nothing therein to show that the 7[th] respondent has, in any manner, violated any of WP(C).No.29449 OF 2019 -5- the imperative conditions of the Environmental Clearance. He, therefore, asserts that the attempt of the petitioner appears to be very mischevous and confutative in nature. 3. Sri.R.Sreehari, learned Standing Counsel for the 6[th] respondent Grama Panchayat, submits that he has no comment on the contentions raised by the learned Senior Counsel as above but submits that the Secretary will only deal with various applications to be made by the parties in terms of law; adding that Ext.P8 proceedings have already been issued as early as on 24.10.2019, requiring the 7[th] respondent to furnish certain additional materials, so as to enable the said Authority to take a final decision on his application for licence. 4. Sri.M.P.Sreekrishnan, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the SEIAA, submits that though there is no legal impediment in Ext.P10 being taken up and disposed of, this WP(C).No.29449 OF 2019 -6- Court may not make any affirmative declarations in favour of the petitioner and leave it to the said Authority to take a final decision on it as per law, adverting to all relevant and germane inputs. He says that necessary action on Ext.P10 can be finalised after hearing the 7[th] respondent also, without any further delay. 5. When I consider the afore submissions, I find substantial force in the contentions of the learned Senior Counsel Sri.Bechu Kurian Thomas and am of the firm opinion that as regards the second prayer in this writ petition, it cannot be granted since the President of a Panchayat cannot approach this Court against its Secretary and that too seeking that he be stopped from discharging his legally enjoined duties. 6. Perhaps on guaging my mind as afore, the learned counsel for the petitioner then confined his plea that the petitioner's WP(C).No.29449 OF 2019 -7- application, namely Ext.P10, be directed to be taken up by the SEIAA and disposed of. I do not see any reason why this relief should be denied, particularly when Sri.M.P.Sreekrishnan submits that same can be considered in terms of law, after hearing the 7[th] respondent also. 7. Resultantly, without entering into the merits of any of the contentions and solely to ensure that the SEIAA is able to take a final decision as per law, I order this writ petition to the limited extent of directing the competent Authority of the 2[nd] respondent SEIAA to take up Ext.P10 representation of the petitioner and deal with it strictly as per the applicable legal provisions and within the parameters of their jurisdiction, as per the applicable Statutes and notifications. 8. Needless to say, before taking a final decision on Ext.P10, the SEIAA will be obligated to hear and consider the version of the WP(C).No.29449 OF 2019 -8- 7[th] respondent and assess it properly. After I dictated this judgment, the learned Senior Counsel submitted that the conclusions in this judgment may be directed to be not construed by any of the Authorities to mean that jurisdiction of the Secretary of the Panchayat is in any manner interdicted. Since I have limited the directions in this judgment solely to the consideration of Ext.P10 by the SEIAA and no other, I reiteratingly clarify that no Authority will construe my directions otherwise and that the Secretary will be at liberty to deal with the application of the petitioner in terms of law, adverting to Ext.P8. ## **Sd/-** ## **DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN** ## **JUDGE** vv WP(C).No.29449 OF 2019 -9- ## **APPENDIX** **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** - **EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL CLEARANCE CERTIFICATE NO.46/2018 DATED 17.3.2018 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT** - **EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF MINUTES OF MEETING CONVENED BY TALUK DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE DATED 16.9.2019.** **EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE VILLAGE OFFICER DATED 10.8.2019.** - **EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 21.8.2019 ISSUED BY THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE.** - **EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT AND DATED 18.9.2019** - **EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE VILLAGE OFFICER DATED 21.10.2019.** - **EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 16.9.2019 ISSUED BY THE KERALA WATER AUTHORITY.** - **EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 24.10.2019 ISSUED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT TO THE 7TH RESPONDENT** **EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE RESOLUTION OF PANCHAYATH COMMITTEE IN A MEETING DATED 16.9.2019.** **EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 30.9.2019 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT** **EXHIBIT P11** **TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 29.9.2019 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT.** //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE