The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging Ext.P10 proceedings of the second respondent by which, an application for licence to conduct a quarry has been declined. The case of the petitioner is that, he has obtained all necessary licences and permissions from the concerned authorities and that there can be no objection to the granting of the licence to him. The only reason stated in Ext.P10 is that, one Shri. Yousuff has preferred a complaint against the quarry. According to the counsel for the petitioner denial of licence to the petitioner is for the sole reason that a complaint is pending against the quarry. According to the counsel for the petitioner the denial of licence to the petitioner for the sole reason that a complaint is pending against the quarry is absolutely unjustified. 2. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondents 2 and 3. It is not in dispute that, the petitioner had been granted a licence to conduct quarry during the year 2013-14. What is stated in paragraphs 5 and 6 is as follows:-
“5. While so the gramasabha of the ward No:12 of the Panchayathu was convened on December 2013. In the said gramasabha the members present in the same had unanimously taken decision to take necessary action to stop the quarry. Thereafter one Yousuf Pulickal had submitted a complaint before the Panchayathu Committee against the running of the quarry contending that the people residing in the locality had preferred complaints against the running of the quarry. He further alleged that the quarry is situated in the inhabitant area and adjacent to the public water source. He contended that damage had caused to the nearby buildings due to the functioning of the quarry and the said complaint was forwarded to the sub committee for enquiry. In view of the unanimous decision taken by the Gramasabha of the Ward No:XII of the Panchayathu, the sub committee recommended the executive committee not to renew the license for the quarry.
6. The petitioner had submitted application for the renewal of the license on 26.2.2014. On receipt of the application the Panchayathu had summoned the petitioner and the persons who had raised complaints against the running of the quarry. In view of the decision and recommendation of the gramasabha and in view of the objection raised against the quarry, the Panchayathu had decided not to issue license for the running of the quarry.”
3. Heard. A perusal of Ext.P10 shows that, the application for renewal of licence of the petitioner has been rejected for the sole reason that a complaint has been made by one Shri.Yousuf against the petitioner's quarry. The same has been reiterated in paragraphs 5 and 6 of the counter affidavit, reproduced above. The Panchayat has not verified whether the complaint is justified or not. Merely for the reason that a complaint has been made against the quarry it is not open to the Panchayat to reject the application for renewal of licence submitted by the petitioner. The application for renewal has to be considered in accordance with law, with proper application of mind to all the relevant aspects. Ext.P10 does not show that any such consideration has been made by the Panchayat. Therefore, Ext.P10 is unsustainable.
In view of the above, this writ petition is allowed. Ext.P10 is set aside. Respondents 2 and 3 are directed to consider the application for renewal of licence submitted by the petitioner afresh and to pass appropriate orders thereon, in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of one month of the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
jj /True copy/ Sd/-
K. SURENDRA MOHAN Judge