High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2017-06-22Writ petition disposed of; Ext.P16 not interfer...

Raihanath v. State of Kerala and others

Case / Petition Number:WP(C).No. 17138 of 2017 (N)

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: K. Vinod Chandran
Judgment Date: 2017-06-22
Court Decision / Holding: Writ petition disposed of; Ext.P16 not interfered with; petitioner left to pursue required licenses and consents (D&O, consent to operate/establish) and to secure environmental clearances where applicable. Ext.P17 shall be considered by the Pollution Control Board within two months from certified copy of the judgment. No costs.
Final Disposition: Writ petition disposed of; Ext.P16 not interfered with; Ext.P17 to be considered within two months; No costs.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Raihanath, W/o. Mohammed Sheriff, Aged 29, Aluva House, Vellamunda PO, Vellamunda Panchayat, Wayanad - 670731

Respondents

State of Kerala represented by the Secretary, Department of Urban Affairs, Trivandrum
Panamaram Grama Panchayat represented by its Secretary, Panamaram, Wayanad
The Secretary, Panamaram Grama Panchayat, Panamaram, Wayanad
Environmental Engineer, Kerala State Pollution Control Board, District Office, Wayanad

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri E. Narayanan

Counsels for Respondents

• R1: Sri Raji T. Bhaskar (Government Pleader)
• R2 & R3: Sri Manoj Ramaswamy
• R4: Sri T. Naveen

Case Synopsis & Summary

Raihanath, the petitioner, seeks to set aside Ext.P16, an order of the Panachayat directing the stoppage of a brick manufacturing unit at Re-Sy. No. 285/7 in Anchukunnu Village, Mananthavady Taluk. The dispute centers on the misalignment between mining permits and industrial licenses. The petitioner asserts he leased a building under Ext.P1 and operates a brick unit on Re-Sy. No. 285/7, while the mining activity is in Sy. No. 137/2 and 137/3. The Panchayat’s Ext.P16 is premised on the mis-match of the NOC (Ext.P2) relating to 137/2, a mining permit (Ext.P18) and the D&O licences (Exts.P11–P12) for brick manufacturing. The petitioner argues that Ext.P11 and P12 pertain to a joint mining and brick-trade license for 285/7, and a separate D&O license for the mining in 137/2 should have been obtained; he contends consent to operate from the Pollution Control Board and consent to establish from the Panchayat are not properly pursued. The court notes lack of a separate mining license for 137/2 and the absence of a Pollution Control Board consent to operate; it holds that there is no reason to interfere with Ext.P16, though it recognises that Ext.P18 was issued without environmental clearance, contrary to the All Kerala River Protection Council v. State of Kerala doctrine. The petitioner is left to pursue the required licenses and consents, and Ext.P17, if available, will be considered within two months. The writ petition is closed with reservations.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 233 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Environmental clearance is required for quarrying activities (per All Kerala River Protection Council v. State of Kerala, 2015 (2) KLT 78).

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

Petitioner contends that the brick unit is on leased premises (Ext.P1) and mining activity falls in Sy. No. 137/2; Exts.P11–P12 show joint D&O licenses only for Re-Sy. 285/7, necessitating separate licenses for mining and trading. No Consent to Operate from the Pollution Control Board or Consent to Establish from the Panchayat is shown; the petitioner argues he has complied with or seeks the requisite permissions and that Ext.P16 was wrongly invoked.

Contentions of Respondents

Respondents argue that Ext.P16 is validly issued due to lack of proper licensing and approvals; the unit operates without proper separate licensing and without necessary consents; Ext.P18 lacks environmental clearance, a matter the petition acknowledges via All Kerala River Protection Council v. State of Kerala but the court’s order proceeds with the existing restrictions and directs attention to compliance and future licensing.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
All Kerala River Protection Council v. State of Kerala	2015 (2) KLT 78	Positive	Court acknowledges the ruling that environmental clearance is required for quarrying and cites it to critique Ext.P18 as lacking such clearance.

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 Raihanath v. State of Kerala and others 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 K.VINOD CHANDRAN** **THURSDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF JUNE 2017/1ST ASHADHA, 1939** **WP(C).No. 17138 of 2017 (N) ---------------------------** **PETITIONER: -----------** **RAIHANATH, W/O.MOHAMMED SHERIFF, AGED 29, ALUVA HOUSE, VELLAMUNDA PO, VELLAMUNDA PANCHAYAT, WAYANAD - 670731.** **BY ADV. SRI.E.NARAYANAN** **RESPONDENTS:** - **------------** **1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF URBAN AFFAIRS, TRIVANDRUM - 695001.** **2. THE PANAMARAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PANAMARAM, WAYANAD, PIN - 670721.** **3. THE SECRETARY, PANAMARAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT, PANAMARAM, WAYANAD, PIN - 670 721.** **4. THE ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER, KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, DISTRICT OFFICE, WAYANAD, PIN - 673 121.** - **R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.RAJI T.BHASKAR R2 & R3 BY ADV.SRI.MANOJ RAMASWAMY R4 BY SRI.T.NAVEEN, SC** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22-06-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **mbr/** ## **WP(C).No. 17138 of 2017 (N) ----------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1: TRUE COPY OF LICENSE AGREEMENT ENTERED INTO BETWEEN SRI.P.VARGHESE AND THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P2: TRUE COPY OF NOC DATED 30.08.2013 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER FROM THE OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, WAYANAD. EXHIBIT P3: TRUE COPY OF LICENSE DATED 09.02.2015 ISSUED FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF MINING AND GEOLOGY. EXHIBIT P4: TRUE COPY OF ACKNOWLEDGEMENT (PART II) ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT INDUSTRIES CENTRE, WAYANAD, DT. 19.09.2014. EXHIBIT P5: TRUE COPY OF CERTIFICATE NO. PH/117/2015 DATED 07.10.2015 ISSUED BY THE HEALTH INSPECTOR. EXHIBIT P6: TRUE COPY OF CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE HEALTH INSPECTOR.** - **EXHIBIT P7: TRUE COPY OF CERTIFICATE BEARING NO.66/2017 DATED 02.05.2017 ISSUED BY THE HEALTH INSPECTOR.** - **EXHIBIT P8: TRUE COPY OF NOC DATED 04.12.2014 ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER.** - **EXHIBIT P9: TRUE COPY OF INTEGRATED CONSENT ISSUED BY THE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD.** - **EXHIBIT P10: TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 08.01.2015 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD.** **EXHIBIT P11: TRUE COPY OF D & O LICENSE ISSUED BY THE PANCHAYAT. EXHIBIT P12: TRUE COPY OF RENEWED D & O LICENSE ISSUED BY THE PANCHAYAT DATED 28.09.2015. EXHIBIT P13: TRUE COPY OF RECEIPT SHOWING DEPOSIT OF FEE BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE PANCHAYAT. EXHIBIT P14: TRUE COPY OF RECEIPT DATED 17.10.2016 SHOWING DEPOSIT OF FEE BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE PANCHAYAT. EXHIBIT P15: TRUE COPY OF CASH RECEIPT SHOWING REMITTANCE OF PROFESSIONAL TAX BEFORE THE PANCHAYAT. --2--** ## **--2--** ## **WP(C).No. 17138 of 2017 (N) ----------------------------** |**EXHIBIT P16: TRUE COPY OF NOTICE DATED 11.05.2017 BEARING**| |---| |**NO.B3/5558/2017 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT**| |**PANCHAYAT.**| |**EXHIBIT P17: TRUE COPY OF THE ONLINE INDUSTRY REGISTRATION**| |**RECEIPT DATED 31.5.17 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE**| |**POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD.**| |**EXHIBIT P18: TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT DATED 31.5.17**| |**ISSUED BY THE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD.**| |**EXHIBIT P18: TRUE COPY OF QUARRYING PERMIT**| |**NO.2/2014-15/MM/OC/DOW/M-1362/14,**| |**DATED 30.4.2014 ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT**| |**GEOLOGIST, WAYANAD(IN IA.9416/2017).**| |**RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS**<br>**:**<br>**NIL.**| |**//TRUE COPY//**| |**P.S. TO JUDGE**| **mbr/** ## K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P(C) No. 17138 of 2017 N - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 22[nd] day of June, 2017 **==> picture [128 x 21] intentionally omitted <==** The petitioner seeks setting aside of Ext.P16 order passed by the Panchayat. Ext.P16 speaks of the petitioner having misled the Panchayat insofar as issuance of a licence to run a brick manufacturing unit by name Malabar Clay Products in Re.Sy.No.285/7 of Anchukunnu Village Manathavady Taluk. The Panchayat by Ext.P16 informed the petitioner that the No Objection Certificate (NOC) issued by the District Collector, mining permit issued by the Geology Department as also the certificate of the Industries Department refers to Sy. No. 137/2 and 137/3. The Pollution Control Board has also issued a consent to establish as per Ext.P9 to establish the brick manufacturing unit in Sy. WPC.No. 17138/2017 : 2 : No.137/2 and 137/3. In such circumstances, the petitioner was directed to stop the unit which was being functioned in Re.Sy No.285/7. 2. The petitioner contends that he had taken out on lease a building in Re.Sy.No.285/7 as per Ext.P1 deed, numbered as PP.22/281. The brick unit is being carried on in the said premises and the mining activity is carried on in Sy. No.137/2; is the specific argument. 3. Ext.P2 is the NOC issued by the District Collector which relates to Sy. No.137/2. Ext.P3 is the licence for storing and selling of ordinary earth which is issued by the Geologist and relates to Re-Sy.No.285/7. Ext.P4 again is the certificate of the Industries Department which may not be very relevant for consideration of the above issue. Exts P5 to P7 are certificate issued by the Health Inspector and Ext.P8 is issued by the District Medical Officer. Ext.P9 is the consent to WPC.No. 17138/2017 : 3 : establish issued by the Pollution Control Board. The licence issued by the Panchayat earlier at Ext.P11 is valid from 30.01.2015 to 31.03.2015 and then renewed from 31.03.2015 to 01.04.2015. It is the further renewal application which has led to Ext P:16. 4. Looking at the entire documents it is very clear that the petitioner had a mining permit with respect to Sy.No.137/2 (Ext.P18) and the brick manufacturing unit in Re-Sy. No.285/7. However, the D&O licence issued at Exts.P11 and P12 is for the joint activity of mining and also manufacturing of bricks, which has been issued only in Re-Sy. No.285/7; which is evidenced by the building numbers in Exts.P11 and P12. In fact, the petitioner ought to have applied for separate D&O licence for mining activities in Sy.No. 137/2 and trading activity in Re-Sy.No.285/7. The petitioner also does not have Consent to Operate, issued by the Pollution WPC.No. 17138/2017 : 4 : Control Board to carry on sale or trade in ordinary earth. In such circumstance, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with Ext.P16. 5. In passing, it is to be noticed that Ext.P18 has been issued without an environmental clearance which is against the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in All Kerala River Protection Council v. State of Kerala [2015 (2) KLT 78], As of now, it is submitted by the petitioner that he is not carrying on any quarrying activity and it is also clear that there is no quarrying permit as of now available to the petitioner. The petitioner only seeks for carrying on brick manufacturing unit with ordinary clay quarried already based on Ext.P18 permit. To carry on the unit, the petitioner would have to apply for 'consent to operate' from the Pollution Control Board after obtaining a 'consent to establish' in Re-Sy. No. 285/7, since WPC.No. 17138/2017 : 5 : admittedly, the petitioner is carrying on a brick manufacturing unit in Re-Sy.No.285/7. The petitioner should also obtain consent issued by the Panchayat under Section 233 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act,1994 and D&O licence issued by the Panchayat. The petitioner would be left remedy to pursue the licences and consents. However, as of now, there is no reason to interfere with Ext.P16. Ext.P17, if available with the Pollution Control Board, shall be considered in accordance with law, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. Writ petition would stand closed with the above reservations. No costs. Sd/- (K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE) jma //true copy// P.A to Judge