The rejection of renewal application for No Objection Certificate by the respondent Panchayat is under challenge in this writ petition.
2. The petitioner alleges that he was granted with a licence for establishing a flour mill as per Ext.P1. According to him, he obtained permission from the Industries Department. Subsequently, his application was kept pending and on a complaint filed by the 3rd respondent alleging that there was pollution in the Panchayat, a stop memo was issued. Thereafter, the Panchayat by Ext.P5 issued a notice stating that in their records, the nature of the building is shown as shop room and that has to be corrected.
3. According to the petitioner, the alleged pollution issues highlighted by the 3rd respondent was without any basis. Therefore, WP(C).5723/14 -:2:- he filed Ext.P6 representation. The petitioner further alleges that Ext.P7 consent has been obtained by him from the Kerala State Pollution Control Board to operate the unit which is valid upto 31.03.2015. The Chief Town Planner has also directed to act in accordance with the orders of the Pollution Control Board as per Ext.P8; it is alleged.
4. The petitioner further alleges that the complaint filed by the 3rd respondent before the learned Ombudsman for Local Self Government was disposed of by Ext.P13 and thereafter the application for renewal of licence has been rejected by Ext.P11. It is with this background, the petitioner has come up before this Court.
5. In the counter affidavit filed by the first respondent, they have contended that as per Rule 59(2) of Kerala Panchayat Buildings Rules the petitioner had to obtain approval of the District Town Planner for the use of the building and it was for that reason, the petitioner's request was rejected.
WP(C).5723/14 -:3:-
6. The 3rd respondent though entered appearance did not file counter, but opposed the writ petition on the ground that the petitioner's unit is causing environmental pollution.
7. Arguments have been heard.
8. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner has obtained requisite permission from the Industries Department as well as the Pollution Control Board. By Ext.P8, the Chief Town Planner has directed the Panchayat to act in accordance with the order of the Pollution Control Board. However, the petitioner's application was rejected pointing out that the petitioner has to change the nature of occupancy and thus, they have pointed out to Rule 3(1) of the Kerala Panchayat Buildings Rules. Rule 3 (1) of the Kerala Panchayat Buildings Rules shall apply to. -
(a) where a building is newly erected,
(b) where a building is altered,
(c) where the occupancy or use of a building is changed,
(d) where addition or extension is made to a building.
WP(C).5723/14 -:4:-
9. These are the only circumstance which attracts Rule 3 of the Kerala Panchayat Buildings Rules, 2011. Therefore, the rejection of the petitioner's request in the light of Rule 3(1) of the Kerala Panchayat Buildings Rules cannot be sustained.
10. On a consideration of the entire materials now placed on record, this Court is of the definite view that the matter requires a re-look by the respondent Panchayat.
Therefore, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the 1st respondent Panchayat to consider petitioner's application after affording him an opportunity of being heard. This shall be done within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. To facilitate early action, petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment along with his application before the respondent Panchayat within one month from today.
Sd/-
A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI JUDGE krj