The petitioners have filed this writ petition challenging Ext.P9 order passed by the 1st respondent granting a licence under Section 233 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act to establish an industrial unit. The petitioners are persons who claim to be residents of the locality. According to them, the industry that is proposed, would be a source of nuisance. Therefore, they have sought for setting aside Ext.P9. A counter affidavit has been filed by the 5th respondent producing Exts.R5(a) and R5(m) documents. Adv.Sri.M.Ajay appears for the 4th respondent. Adv.Sri.Anil K Mohammed appears for respondents 1 and 2. The learned Government Pleader appears for the 3rd respondent.
2. According to the counsel for the petitioners, the consent to establish has been granted to the 5th respondent by the 4th respondent relying on a sketch that has been marked as Ext.R3(h) in Ext.P2. The said sketch according to the counsel, is erroneous since it does not show any of the residential houses that are actually located within the prohibited distance of the proposed unit. According to the counsel, it is necessary that an Advocate Commissioner is deputed from this Court to ascertain and report the said facts to this Court.
3. Adv.Sri.G.Gopalakrishnan Nair who appears for the 5th respondent on the other hand points out that, Ext.P9 is an order W.P.(C) No.29461 of 2014 2 against which the petitioners have a statutory remedy by way of appeal to the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions, Thiruvananthapuram. Against the consent granted by the 4th respondent also, the petitioner has preferred Ext.P10 appeal which is pending before the appellate authority under the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981. In view of the above, it is contended that the petitioner is not entitled to any of the reliefs sought for in this writ petition.
Having heard the counsel appearing for the respective parties, I am not satisfied that any interference with Ext.P9 is called for, at this stage. The remedy of the petitioner against Ext.P9 is by way of an appeal, provided by the statute to the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions, Thiruvananthapuram. It shall therefore be open to the petitioner to invoke the said remedy against Ext.P9. Against the consent that has been issued by the 4th respondent to the 5th respondent, the petitioner has already invoked his statutory remedy and Ext.P10 appeal is pending before the appellate authority. Therefore, it is for the petitioner to pursue the said appeal for necessary reliefs. The above being the position, I am not satisfied that the petitioner is entitled to any of the reliefs sought for.
This writ petition is therefore, dismissed.
Sd/-
K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE.
AV