Amity Rocks Products (Pvt.) Ltd. vs State of Kerala

P.V. Asha, J.—This Writ Petition is filed challenging Ext. P5 letter by which the Government directed the Secretary of Kottangal Grama Panchayat, Pathanamthitta, to cancel the licence issued to the crusher unit of the petitioner and report the same. This action is stated to be taken on the basis of the report of the Deputy Director of Panchayats, Pathanamthitta, that condition Nos. 12, 14, 16 and 20 in the licence issued by the Grama Panchayat are not being observed by the unit. The order is seen to have been passed on the basis of a letter dated 21.12.2007 No. C.1-988/07 of the Secretary of the Kottangal Grama Panchayat.

The case of the petitioner is that the crusher unit was purchased by him from Sri Anu T. George and transferred in the name of the petitioner in the year 2008-09. According to the petitioner, he has been observing all the conditions stipulated in the licence issued by the Panchayat. Ext. P2 is a copy of the licence issued to him for the period 01.01.2009 to 31.03.2009 and the same was issued on 26.12.2008. According to the petitioner, condition Nos. 12, 14, 16 and 20 are observed by him. Condition No. 12 is that the unit shall not function from 6 p.m. to 6 a.m. Condition No. 14 is that no obstruction shall be caused to the public transport. Condition No. 16 is that green belt surrounding the unit shall be maintained. Condition No. 20 relates to protection of soil and water resources in and around the property.

I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel for the Kottangal Grama Panchayat and the learned Government Pleader. The learned counsel appearing for the Grama Panchayat submitted that the petitioner is observing all the conditions stipulated in the licence and that the licence is being renewed from year to year and that the petitioner is having licence for the period up to 31.03.2015 and he has also been obtained environmental clearance.

When this Writ Petition came up for admission, this Court had passed an order on 12.03.2009 directing the learned Government Pleader to get instructions as to the provision under which the Government issued Ext. P5 order. An interim order was also passed staying the operation and implementation of Ext. P5 order.

The Government have not filed any counter affidavit. The learned Government Pleader furnished me the instructions received by him as per letter No. 79202/RC3/2007/LSGD dated 31.03.2009, according to which, the order was passed on the basis of petitions received from residents of the area, after conducting a detailed enquiry through the Deputy Director of Panchayats, Pathanamthitta. According to which, the quarry owners were not fulfilling condition Nos. 12, 14, 16 and 20 stipulated in the licence agreement. Further they relied on Section 191(1)(c) of Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 which reads as follows:

"Power of Cancellation and suspension of resolutions etc.:(1) Government may either suo motu or, on a reference by President, Secretary or a member, or on a petition received from a citizen, cancel or vary a resolution passed or decision taken by the Panchayat if in their opinion such decision or resolution -

xxxx xxxxx xxxxxx

(c) is likely to endanger human life, health, public safety, communal harmony or may lead to riot or quarrel. "

On a perusal of the above provision, it is seen that what is provided therein is action against a resolution passed or a decision taken by the Panchayat on the conditions stipulated therein. In this case, the Government has initiated action as against the licence issued by the Secretary, Grama Panchayat under Section 232 of the Panchayat Raj Act. Moreover the provisions in Section 191 cannot be understood to mean that Government have got unbridled powers to cancel a licence issued by a statutory authority without ever observing the principles of Natural Justice, as done by Ext. P5.

At any rate, the Government order is seen issued on the basis of a report received in 2007, that too without issuing any notice to the petitioner or conducting any enquiry after giving him an opportunity to be heard.

In view of the above circumstances, I quash Ext. P5. This will not preclude the appropriate authorities taking any action if it is found necessary as and when any violation is found, after giving notice to the petitioner in accordance with law.

This Writ Petition is accordingly allowed to the above extent.