Shaffique, J.
This appeal is filed by respondents 1 and 2 in the Writ Petition challenging the judgment dated 7.3.2014 in W.P(C).No. 3078 of 2014, by which the learned Single Judge directed to consider the petitioner's application afresh.
2. The facts involved in the Writ Petition disclose that the writ petitioner, who claims to be involved in the business of cleaning and supplying of construction materials, including M-sand, wanted to put up M-sand washing and processing unit. According to the first respondent, they entered into an agreement with Soma Enterprises Private Limited, who had undertaken the Kochi Metro Rail project, for supplying of 25000 metric tons of M-sand. The unit is being put up. Reference is made to the consent given by the Pollution Control Board to establish the unit. However, when the matter came up for consideration before the Panchayat, they have rejected the application for licence, hence, the petitioner approached this Court seeking for a direction to the Panchayat to consider and dispose of petitioner's application, Exhibit P5 and to direct the Panchayat to grant licence.
3. A counter affidavit has been filed by the appellants inter alia contending that the Panchayat Committee has already taken a decision as per Exhibit R2(a) dated 21.12.2013 and Exhibit R2(b) dated 18.1.2014 refusing to grant licence in favour of the petitioner. On that basis, Exhibit P5 application was not considered. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that having refused to grant licence, it was not open for the learned Single Judge to direct for fresh consideration of Exhibit P5 application.
4. The main argument raised by learned counsel for the appellants is based on the pollution that might be caused on account of the unit being functioning in the said locality. It is argued that merely because the writ petitioner has entered into an agreement with one of the contractors of Kochi Metro Rail project will not give there any right to establish an M-sand unit in the Panchayat, wherein the public at large are suffering from the existence of other metal crusher units. That apart, if one more unit is permitted in the locality, it will affect the health condition of the people and therefore, the Panchayat is unable to consider the writ petitioner's application afresh. On the other hand, learned counsel for the first respondent submits that the Panchayat, in the counter affidavit, has agreed to reconsider the application, if the Court issues such a direction and therefore, it was proper on the part of the Panchayat to have reconsidered the application. It is also argued that they have taken appropriate measures to abate the alleged pollution and the fined articles shall be taken away from the site and utilised for other purposes.
5. The only apprehension expressed by the appellants is with reference to the pollution that might be caused on account of the environment problem in the area and since the Committee Members of the Panchayat expressed their anguish and apprehension with respect to the removal of the waste material, the matter cannot be reviewed.
6. The fact remains that no expert opinion is forthcoming in the matter. The Panchayat, though can take a decision to deny licence, it has to be based on some materials. The Pollution Control Board apparently has given consent to establish the unit with certain conditions. Once the unit is put up, it is for the Pollution Control Board to again give consent to operate.
7. According to the first respondent, they have also obtained consent to operate the unit as per order dated 25.8.2014. However, learned counsel for the Panchayat submits that the said document has not been produced before the Panchayat.
8. The facts being so, if the Panchayat wants to consider the matter, they have to get an expert opinion to find out whether the unit causes any form of pollution. Since the Pollution Control Board has already issued consent to operate the unit, the Panchayat can get assistance from the Environmental Engineer and ensure that conditions stipulated in the consent given by the Pollution Control Board to establish the unit is completely complied with by the first respondent.
9. In the said circumstances, we do not think it necessary to take a different view from what has been taken by the learned learned Single Judge. Exhibit P5 application has necessarily to be considered by the Panchayat afresh on the following conditions:
a) The Panchayat shall obtain a report from the Environmental Engineer of Pollution Control Board in regard to the apprehension regarding pollution and ensure that the writ petitioner has complied with all the conditions as stipulated in the consent.
b) On the basis of the report of the Environmental Engineer, Exhibit P5 application shall be considered afresh in accordance with law and appropriate orders passed within three weeks from the date of receipt of report from the Environmental Engineer.
The Writ Appeal is disposed of modifying the judgment of the learned Single Judge as above.
ASHOK BHUSHAN ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE vgs A.M.SHAFFIQUE JUDGE