Try out our Premium Member services: Virtual Legal Assistant, Query Alert Service and an ad-free experience. Free for one month and pay only if you like it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM
MONDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF MARCH 2012/6TH CHAITHRA 1934
WP(C).No. 7457 of 2012 (F)
-----------------------------------
PETITIONER:
------------------
U.B.MARIKKAR PILLAI, AGED 63 YEARS,
S/O.BEERAN, UPPOOTTIL HOUSE, MUDIKKAL P.O.,
MARAMPILLY VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.SRI.ASWIN GOPAKUMAR
SRI.PRAVEEN.H.
SRI.ANWIN GOPAKUMAR
SMT.KALA G.NAMBIAR
RESPONDENT(S):
--------------------------
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT,
GOVERNMENT SECRETRIAT (ANNEXE),THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
2. VAZHAKULAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT,
MARAMPILLY P.O., ALUVA-683 017
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECERETARY.
3. KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BORAD, PATTOM P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 004. REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN.
4. THE SECRETARY, VAZHAKULAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT,
MARAMPILLY P.O., ALUVA-683 017
5. THE ENVIORNMENTAL ENGINEER,
KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BORAD, GANDHI NAGAR,
ERNAKULAM - 682 020.
6. SULFIKKAR, AGED 43 YEARS,
S/O.HASSAN, THACHIRUKUDI HOUSE, MARAMPILLY VILLAGE,
KUNNATHUNADU TALUK, ALUVA-683 017.
BY SRI.MUHAMMED SHAH, GOVERNMENT PLEADER
BY SRI. M.AJAY, SC, KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
26-03-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
AS
WPC.NO.7457/2012
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS:
EXHIBITP1: COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT DATED 09/3/2011.
EXHIBITP2: COPY OF THE LAYOUT APPROVAL DATED 27/12/2010.
EXHIBITP3: COPY OF THE CONSENT TO ESTABLISH DATED 5/3/2011 ISSUED
BY RESPONDENT NO.4.
EXHIBITP4: COPY OF THE PERMISSION DATED 26/7/2011 UNDER S.233 OF
THE KERALA PANCHAYATH RAJ ACT, 1994.
EXHIBITP5: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 2/5/2011 SUBMITTED BY
REPONDENTS.
EXHIBITP6: COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 24/11/2011 SUBMITTED BY THE
SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT AND ADUIT SUPERVISOR.
EXHIBITP7: COPY OF THE REPORT FORWARDED BY THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR
OF PANCHAYATHS, ERNAKULAM TO THE DIRECTOR OF
PANCHAYATHS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DATED 14/12/2011.
EXHIBITP8: COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 20/12/2011 ISSUED BY THE SENIOR
TOWN PLANNER, REGIONAL TOWN PLANNING OFFICE,
ERNAKULAM TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBITP9: COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 24/12/2011 ISSUED BY
RESPONDENT NO.3.
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL
/TRUE COPY/
P.A TO JUDGE
AS
C.K.ABDUL REHIM,J.
-------------------------------
WP(C).NO. 7457 of 2012
---------------------------------
Dated this the 26th day of March, 2012
JUDGMENT
In this writ petition the petitioner is challenging Exts.P1 to P4. Ext.P1 is a building permit granted by the 2nd respondent Panchayat in favour of the 6th respondent for construction of an industrial shed. Ext.P2 is the approval of layout issued by the Senior Town Planner, Ernakulam with respect to grant of building permit. Ext.P3 is the consent to establish issued by the 3rd respondent to the 6th respondent for establishing an industry engaged in manufacture of 'Cement Bricks'. Ext.P4 is the installation permission granted by the 4th respondent for establishment of the said industry at the building, construction of which was permitted.
2. Contention of the petitioner is that all the above consents, permissions, and licences were obtained either through misrepresentation or non representation of the real facts. The proposed unit is situated at a distance of 15 meters from the residence of the petitioner, is the allegation. If the unit is WP(C).7457 /2012 2 permitted to be established that will cause severe problems of nuisance, sound pollution, and health hazards, is the submission.
3. I take note of the fact that the provisions contained under the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act and the Kerala Panchayat Building Rules 2011 as well as the Kerala Panchayat Raj (Issue of Licence to Dangerous and Offensive Trades and Factories) Rules 1996, enables any person aggrieved by the grant of any building permit or installation permit to challenge such proceedings before the appropriate statutory authority. As per section 276 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act the petitioner has got an effective and alternative remedy to approach the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions, in an appeal. Ext.P3 is the consent to establish granted under the provisions of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act 1974 and the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act 1981. Both statutes provide appellate remedy and the appellate forums have already been constituted under the provisions of the respective statutes.
4. Under the above circumstances this writ petition filed challenging Exts.P1 to P4 in a proceedings under Article 226 WP(C).7457 /2012 3 cannot be entertained, which in effect will permit bypassing of all the statutory remedies.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that if the petitioner has to approach different statutory authorities the same will result in multiple proceedings and there will be chances of conflicting decisions. When the statute prescribes specific remedies, this court cannot ignore such remedies provided and may not be justified in exercising the discretionary original jurisdiction to consolidate all such challenges. I do not find any special circumstances prevailing to entertain this writ petition, which is one filed by-passing the effective and alternative statutory remedies. Hence the writ petition fails and the same is accordingly dismissed.
However, statutory remedies if any available under law to the petitioner to challenge Exts.P1 to P4 will stand reserved.
C.K.ABDUL REHIM,JUDGE
pmn/
WP(C).7457 /2012 4
WP(C).7457 /2012 5