Abdul Samad vs Ochira Grama Panchayat Represented By Its Secretary

P.V.Kunhikrishnan, J.

This writ petition is filed with following prayers:

i. Issue a writ of Mandamus or any other writ or direction directing the Respondents 1, 2 and 4 to take action against the 3rd Respondent and close down the Hose Manufacturing Unit of the 3rd Respondent, if necessary by taking coercive steps and with police help.

ii. Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other Writ, Order or direction directing the Respondents 1, 2 and 4 to ensure that the 3rd Respondent does not conduct her Hose Manufacturing Unit without obtaining necessary license from the Panchayat and necessary consent to operate her unit namely Trans Ocean PVC Hose Manufacturing Unit forthwith.

iii. Pass such further orders as this Honourable Court may be pleased to grant on the facts and circumstances of the case.

(SIC)

The main prayer in this writ petition is to issue a direction to respondents 1, 2 and 4 to take action against the 3rd Respondent and close down the hose manufacturing unit of the 3rd respondent without taking licence and permission from the statutory authorities. The second prayer is also to ensure that the 3rd respondent does not conduct her hose manufacturing unit without obtaining necessary license from the Panchayat and necessary consent to operate her unit from the statutory authorities.

When this writ petition came up for consideration, the learned Senior Counsel Adv.George Poonthottam, who is instructed to appear for the 3rd respondent takes me through paragraphs 7 to 9 of the counter affidavit filed by the 3rd respondent. It will be better to extract paragraphs 7 to 9:

“7. However, even after obtaining the Exhibit-R3(a) acknowledgment certificate, the 3rd respondent has not been operational and has also not been engaged in any manufacturing process. With regard to the allegation on the electricity bill, it is necessary to point out to the Court that, the unit has been provided with a commercial connection by the KSEB after paying lakhs of rupees. The unit is powered by a 100 HP transformer as against a normal connection provided to the neighbours. The charge details can be dissected as the following.

Load Tension lines have a fixed charge of Rs. 8160/-.

Because the unit contains lakhs worth of machinery with sensors and heaters that require consistent flow of electricity, it is impossible to shut down the unit completely. These machines require electricity 24x7. If the electricity is cut-off, these machines could face irreparable damage. The charge reflected is the electricity used for the safe keeping of the machines.

Over the consumer charge of the 3rd respondent, she is also obligated to pay thousands of Rupees as Duty.

All the above requirement brings the Total amount to the rate questioned by the petitioner.

True copy of the electricity bills of the 3rd respondent's unit is herewith marked as Exhibit-R3(b). If the unit was in production, the monthly charge of electricity could be anticipated to be about Lakhs of rupees.

Following the mandate of Kerala Micro small medium enterprise facilitation Act, the petitioner does not require further permission to consent to operate or to establish. But by following the direction of this Hon'ble Court, the petitioner has approached the Kerala State Pollution Control Board and has filed a fresh application requesting consent to establish on 15.04.2022. True copy of the application dated 15.04.2022 submitted by the petitioner before the Kerala State Pollution Control Board along with the receipt of payment is herewith marked as Exhibit-R3(c).

In the light of the above submission, it is fair to state that the 3rd respondent has not been functioning her unit as alleged by the petitioner in the instant Writ Petition. The prayer of the petitioner is without any merit, advanced with an intention to harass the 3rd respondent and her family. The unit owned by the respondent herein is not in production as alleged erroneously by the petitioner though there is no legal bar for the same. Even though the unit of the 3rd respondent has the requisite permission as per Exhibit-R3(a) to start her production, she has approached the Pollution control board for further permission to avoid another round of litigation.”

The learned Senior Counsel submitted that the 3rd respondent is not now functioning the unit and the manufacturing process is not going on. The learned Senior Counsel also submitted that a fresh application for consent to establish is already submitted before the additional 5th respondent and the same is pending. The learned Standing Counsel for the additional 5th respondent submitted that the application is returned to the petitioner seeking certain clarifications. Now it is submitted by the learned Senior Counsel that the application will be resubmitted before the additional 5th respondent. If that is the case, there can be a direction to the additional 5th respondent to process the application in accordance to law. The additional 5th respondent will also consider paragraph 8 of the judgment dated 08.04.2022 in Writ Appeal No.477/2022 while considering the fresh application.

Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of in the following manner:

Paragraphs 7 to 9 of the counter affidavit dated 19.06.2022 filed by the 3rd respondent is recorded.

The additional 5th respondent will consider the application for consent to establish in the light of  the  observation  in  paragraph  8  of  the judgment  dated  08.04.2022  in  Writ  Appeal No.477/2022.