High Court of Kerala
Case Law Search
PEPSICO INDIA HOLDINGS PVT. LTD. v. STATE OF KERALA - WP(C) No. 27334 of 2003(D)  RD-KL 7427 (10 April 2007)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAMWP(C) No. 27334 of 2003(D)
1. PEPSICO INDIA HOLDINGS PVT. LTD.,
1. STATE OF KERALA,
2. PUDUSSERY GRAMA PANCHAYAT(SPECIAL GRADE)
3. THE KERALA INDUSTRIAL SINGLE WINDOW
For Petitioner :SRI.ANTONY DOMINIC
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice MR.K.S.RADHAKRISHNAN The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.N.KRISHNAN
O R D E RWPC 27334/03 and 27736/04 1
K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, Ag. C.J. & M.N. KRISHNAN, J.W.P.C. Nos. 27334 of 2003 and 27736 of 2004
Dated: 10th April 2007
Radhakrishnan, Ag. C. J. The cardinal question to be considered in these cases is whether the second respondent Panchayat has got jurisdiction either to issue or cancel the licence granted to the petitioner for setting up the factory at Kanjikode situated in an industrial area notified as Integrated Industrial Township, Palghat by the Government of Kerala vide SRO No 730/01 issued by notification G.O. 672/2001/AD dated 24.7.2001 in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (f) of Sections 2 and 5 of the Kerala Industrial Single Window Clearance Boards and Industrial Township Area Development Act, 1999 (Act 5 of 2000), in short Development Act.
2. Petitioner is a private limited Company registered under the Companies Act engaged in the manufacture, bottling and sale of soft drinks like Pepsi, Mirinda, Seven Up etc., the factory of which is set up in the industrial area, Kanjikode. The petitioner company had made an application for the issue of licence for setting up of a factory in an industrial WPC 27334/03 and 27736/04 2 area through the Kerala State Industrial Development Corporation Limited (K.S.I.D.C) to the Single Window Clearance State Board constituted under the Kerala Industrial Single Window Clearance Boards and Industrial Township Area Development Act, 1999 (in short "the Development Act"). The State Board after considering the application preferred by the petitioner directed the second respondent to grant necessary permission / industrial license to the petitioner for putting up the factory in the industrial area. The second respondent on receiving the recommendation from the State Board issued a license in favour of M/s ABMC for a period of five years from 2000-2001 to 2004-2005 evidenced by Ext. P4.
3. Petitioner has been carrying on the manufacturing process complying with all the statutory requirements and at no point of time they have violated any of the conditions in Ext P4. Due to some public agitation against the functioning of the factory the petitioner had to move this court for police protection and protection was granted by this court as per order dated 20.01.2003. The second respondent later issued a notice No A4 262/2000 to show cause why the licence should not be cancelled due to the allegation of over exploitation of ground water by the petitioners and the consequent shortage of drinking water. Ext. P5 is the notice dated 20.05.2003 served on the petitioners. Petitioner submitted a reply denying WPC 27334/03 and 27736/04 3 the allegation and also submitted that the Panchayat has no jurisdiction either to issue or cancel licence issued to the petitioner since the power to grant licence or to cancel the licence vests with the Board constituted under the Development Act, 1999. Petitioner also referred to the notification, G.O. No 672/2001/AD dated 24.7.2001 notifying the area as an Integrated Industrial Township, Palghat and the petitioner's factory is situated in that area. Further it was also stated that the Government have constituted a Single Window Clearance Board for the said area known as "the Integrated Industrial Township Single Window Clearance Board", Palghat and powers are vested in that Board under the provisions of the Development Act.
4. Petitioner was however served with Order No A4-353/2003 dated 22.08.2003 by the Panchayat cancelling the license. Aggrieved by the same petitioner has approached this court by filing W.P.C. No 27334 of 2003 seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P10 order passed by the second respondent Panchayat and also for a direction to the second respondent to refrain from imposing any condition/restriction to the license issued to the petitioner without the directions from the Single Window Clearance State Board constituted under the Development Act, 1999. Petitioner has also filed I.A. No 3089 of 2007 seeking a declaration that the provisions of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 are not applicable to the Kanjikode unit of WPC 27334/03 and 27736/04 4 the petitioner and that the second respondent Panchayat does not have any administrative jurisdiction over the affairs of the Kanjikode unit of the petitioner.
5. Panchayat had accorded sanction to the petitioner company, vide order No 242/2000 dated 5.5.2000 for the construction of building and installation of 2000 HP electric motor on the basis of application submitted by the company on 12.03.2000. The Company accordingly constructed the building for its factory and installed 2000 HP electric motor at the site. While so, the petitioner unit situated at Kanjikode was notified as an industrial area under the Integrated Industrial Township, Palghat with effect from 24.07.2001 by notification dated 24.07.2001. Since the area was declared as an industrial area, the provisions of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act cease to have application to the industrial area in question by virtue of sub-section (2) of Section 1 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act 1994 though at the time when the factory was set up the area was not declared as an industrial area. Petitioner submits that with effect from 24.07.2001 the second respondent Panchayat ceased to have any jurisdiction over the Kanjikode unit of the petitioner company by virtue of the express provisions of Section 1 (2) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994. Petitioner was however served with Ext. P4 notice dated 20.04.2004 to WPC 27334/03 and 27736/04 5 show cause why steps shall not be taken to cancel Ext. P1 order granting permission to the petitioner to install 2000 HP electric motor on the ground that the petitioner has been indiscriminately extracting huge quantity of ground water thereby drying up a number of wells in and near the locality causing scarcity of drinking water in the Panchayat area. Petitioner replied to the said notice pointing out that the question as to whether Panchayat has got jurisdiction to proceed against the petitioner is already pending consideration before this court in W.P.C. No 27334 of 2003. Objection raised by the petitioner was however repelled and the Panchayat passed Ext. P6 order dated 15.09.2004 in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 182 (iii) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 cancelling the order according sanction for the installation of 2000 HP electric motor and direction was given to the Plant Engineer to dismantle the same. Aggrieved by the said order petitioner has filed W.P.C. No 27736 of 2004 seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext. P6 and also for other consequential reliefs.
6. Panchayat has filed a detailed counter affidavit in both the cases maintaining the stand that it has got jurisdiction to to cancel the license already granted and to revoke the sanction to install 2000 HP electric motor. Panchayat has maintained the stand that the Development Act, 1999 would not take away the rights of the Panchayat under the Kerala Panchayat Raj WPC 27334/03 and 27736/04 6 Act in the matter of issuance or cancellation of license. Further it was pointed out that Section 166 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act provides authority for the Panchayat for maintenance of traditional drinking water sources in the Panchayat as one of its mandatory duties to safeguard public interest. It is stated that the Panchayat Raj Act was enacted by the State Legislature consequent on the Constitution (Seventy third Amendment) Act,1992 for securing a greater measure of participation of the people in planned development and under Article 243-G the Legislature of a State may, by law, endow the Panchayats with such powers and authority as may be necessary to enable them to function as institutions of self-government. Further it is also stated that under Section 243C of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, the Panchayat is vested with the powers to implement and maintain water supply and sewage schemes within the Panchayat area. Panchayat pointed out that one of the important functions required to be discharged by the Grama Panchayats under the provisions of the Constitution of India read along with the Panchayat Raj Act is to ensure and maintain supply of pure drinking water to the people in the Panchayat area.
7. The third respondent, the Kerala State Single Window Clearance Board, has filed a detailed counter affidavit. It is stated therein that the petitioner's factory is established within the industrial area of the WPC 27334/03 and 27736/04 7 Integrated Industrial Township, Palakkad in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (f) of Section 2 and of Section 5 of the Single Window Clearance Act. Consequently provisions of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act are not applicable to the industrial area in question since it falls outside the purview of Section 1(2) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act. The power to grant license is exclusively conferred on the State Board by virtue of the Development Act, 1999 and the authorities are bound to act according to the Board's function under the Development Act, 1999.
8. We heard Senior Counsel Sri A.L.Somayaji for the petitioners, Sri Kallada Sukumaran for the Panchayat, Senior Government Pleader Sri T.B. Hood for the State and Senior Counsel Sri M. Pathros Matthai for the third respondent.
9. Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners has raised various contentions regarding the matters raised in the writ petitions and highlighted the various functions of the authority functioning under the Development Act. Counsel also referred to the decision of the apex court in Solapur MIDC Industries Association v. State of Maharashtra and others (1996) 9 SCC 621). Counsel appearing for the Panchayat reminded us of the duties and responsibilities of the Panchayat under the Panchayat Raj Act and stated that the reasons stated for cancellation of license do not justify WPC 27334/03 and 27736/04 8 the fact that there has been over exploitation of ground water by the petitioner company. In support of this contention counsel also made reference to the decision of this court in Manjapra Grama Panchayat v. State of Kerala (1996 (2) KLT 719) and Action Council v. Benny Abraham (2001 (2) KLT 690).
10. Article 243-G states that subject to the provisions of the
Constitution, the Legislature of
a State may, by law, endow the Panchayats
with such powers and authority as may be necessary to enable
function as institutions of self-government and such law may contain
provisions for the
devolution of powers and responsibilities upon
Panchayats at the appropriate level, subject to such
conditions as may be
specified therein with respect to the preparation of plans for economic
development and social justice, the implementation of schemes for
economic development and social
justice as may be entrusted to them
including those in relation to the matters listed in the Eleventh Schedule.
Eleventh Schedule contains 29 entries. Entry 3 relates to minor
irrigation,water management and
watershed development, drinking water
and so on. By virtue of Article 243G the State enacted
Panchayat Raj Act, 1994. The Legislature in its wisdom excluded the areas
which are within the
limits of the Cantonments, Nagar Panchayats,
WPC 27334/03 and 27736/04 9
Municipal Corporation and the Industrial areas of the
State. We may extract the exclusion provision for easy reference.
(1) This Act may be called the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994
(2) It extends to the
whole of the State of Kerala except the
areas which are within the limits of the Cantonments,
Municipal Councils, Municipal Corporations and the Industrial areas of the
4 of the Act states that the Government shall, by
notification in the gazette, constitute with effect from
such date as specified
in the notification, a "municipal council" for a smaller urban area and a
Municipal Corporation for a larger urban area. Proviso to Section 1 of the
Kerala Panchayat Raj Act states that it extends
to the whole of the State of
Kerala except the areas which are within the limits of the Cantonments,
Nagar Panchayats, Municipal Councils, Municipal Corporations and the
industrial areas of the State.
The term "industrial area" has not been
defined in the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act and has been excluded from
purview of the Panchayat Raj Act. "Industrial area" has been defined in the
Development Act (Act 5 of 2000). The
Development Act was enacted to
provide special provision for speedy issue of various licence clearances and
required for setting up of industrial undertakings in the State of
Kerala and for the Constitution of Industrial Township Area
WPC 27334/03 and 27736/04 10
Authorities and for matter connected therewith. Preamble
of the Act says
that it is necessary to make special provision to promote and assist the
establishment and rapid growth and development of industries in the
State. For that purpose it is necessary
to establish Single Window
Clearance Boards at the State District and Industrial area level. Preamble
the Act also refers to clause (1) of Article 243 Q of the Constitution.
Statement of objects and
reasons states that the Government have given
emphasis to a cluster based approach for the industrial growth of the State
and have been taking a series of steps for establishing both general and
sector specific Parks
in the State with all necessary infrastructure. It is
stated that it is hence vital that
empowered Single Window Clearance
Boards be set up in all such industrial areas so that the entrepreneurs can get
a comprehensive package of assistance to set up units in the identified
industrial areas. "Industrial
area" has been defined in Section 2 (f) of the
Development Act, which reads as follows:
"Industrial Area means any area in the State declared to be an industrial area by the Government by notification in the Gazette from time to time and includes industrial estates, development areas, development plots, mini industrial estates, industrial parks and growth centres." In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (f) of sub-section (2) of WPC 27334/03 and 27736/04 11 Section 5 of the Development Act, the Government declared the Integrated Industrial Township, Palakkad to be an industrial area of the State and constituted a Single Window Clearance Board for the said area to be known as "Integrated Industrial Township Single Window Clearance Board." In the counter affidavit filed by the Executive Officer of the Kerala State Single Window Clearance Board constituted under the Development Act, 1999 it has been specifically stated that the petitioner's factory is established within the industrial area of the Integrated Industrial Township, Palakkad to be an industrial area of the State and has also constituted a Single Window Clearance Board for the said area to be known as the Integrated Industrial Township Single Clearance Board, Palakkad in view of the Government notification dated 24.07.2001. We may in this connection refer to Section 3 of the Act, which is extracted below for easy reference. "3. State Board - (1) For the purpose of speedy issue of various
licences, clearances, certificates required under various State enactments for setting up of industrial undertakings in the State, the Government may, by notification,constitute Single Window Clearance Board for the State to be called the Kerala State Single Window Clearance Board." WPC 27334/03 and 27736/04 12 Government therefore by notification dated 24.07.2001 constituted integrated industrial township. It is that authority which has to deal with the various licence clearances or certificates required under the several State enactments for setting up small scale or large scale industrial undertakings or industrial undertakings within the Integrated Industrial Township, Palakkad. Integrated Industrial Township Single Window Clearance Board is a body corporate by name of the Industrial Area for which it is constituted having perpetual succession and a common seal. Every Industrial Area Single Window Clearance Board shall consist of Principal Secretary to Government, Industries Department or his nominee, Collector of the district, Chief Executive of the Agency owning or managing the industrial area, District Officer of the State Pollution Control Board, District Officer of the Town Planning Department, District Medical Officer, District Officer, Factories and Boilers Inspectorate, Divisional Fire Force Officer, Divisional Forest Officer and so on. Representatives of the local Panchayat are absent in the composition evidently because industrial area has been taken out of the purview of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994. We may also refer to Section 6 of the Development Act which states that notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force all industrial undertakings being established or proposed to be WPC 27334/03 and 27736/04 13 established in industrial area shall be exempted from obtaining permits from Municipalities or Grama Panchayats Town Planning Department or Development Authorities for construction of buildings for starting an industrial undertaking. Section 7 dealing with the powers and functions of Industrial Area Boards states as follows: Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, every person intending to establish an industrial undertaking or a small scale industrial undertaking in any of the notified industrial areas shall submit the application in the prescribed form to the designated authority of that industrial area for clearances or licenses or certificates required under various State enactments together with the fee if any to be paid, under the respective enactment. (2) The Industrial Area Board shall after complying the procedure prescribed in this behalf and within thirty days from the date of receipt of the application take a decision as -
(a) to recommend to the authority concerned, the issue of the licence or permission applied for without any modifications or with such modifications as it thinks to fit to make; or
(b) to refuse clearance if it is of the opinion that the proposed construction, establishment or installation is objectionable. (3) The decision taken by the Industrial Areas Board shall be communicated to the applicant and the authority concerned by the designated authority of the Industrial Area Board. We may in this connection refer to the definition of "District Board" contained in Section 2 (c) of the Development Act. "District Board" means the District Single Window Clearance Board constituted under sub-section WPC 27334/03 and 27736/04 14 (1) of Section 4 of the Act. District Boards have been constituted under various other State enactments. Every District Board shall consist of Collector of the District, General Manager, District Industries Centre of the District concerned, President of the Grama Panchayat concerned or Chairperson of the Municipality concerned in cases where license is required from the local bodies, District Officer of the State Pollution Control Board and so on. The Integrated Industrial Township, Palakkad has been declared as an industrial area in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 5, which falls outside the purview of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994. Consequently Panchayat cannot exercise any power to cancel the licence issued to the petitioner's factory, a power which is exclusively vested on the Board functioning under the Development Act.
11. Section 10 of the Development Act authorises the State Board, District Board or the Industrial Area Board to issue the clearances, licenses or certificates applied for in accordance with the recommendations of the State Board, District Board or Industrial Area Board. Panchayat has no say in the matter of issuing licence. Panchayat has passed a resolution on 15.5.2003 to cancel the licence to the petitioner company but it may be noted that the industrial establishments put up in the new industrial area are governed by the Development Act. Shortage in the availability of WPC 27334/03 and 27736/04 15 drinking water is a perennial problem, says the Panchayat. Panchayat can always bring this to the notice of the authorities constituted under the Development Act and that authority can also examine whether the industrial units are consuming excess water depleting water sources affecting the people.
12. Panchayat it may be noted has approached this court by filing W.P.C. No 8897 of 2004 challenging the constitutional validity of Section 1 (2) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 to the extent it excluded Nagar Panchayats, Municipal Counsel etc. and the petitioner company got impleaded as additional seventh respondent in the writ petition which was subsequently dismissed as withdrawn. Reference in this connection may be made to the decision of the apex court in Sali Gram Panchayat's case supra. That was a case where Grama Panchayat impugned the notifications as well as the resolutions issued by the State Government under Section 2 (g) of the Gujarat Industrial Development Act,1962 declaring certain lands of Village Saij as Kalol Industrial Area. Section 16 gives power to the Government to issue notification by which it can declare that an industrial area as defined in the Gujarat Industrial Development Act, 1962 would also be a deemed notified area under the Gujarat Municipalities Act, 1963. With effect from 1.6.1993, the Constitution 73rd and 74th Amendments WPC 27334/03 and 27736/04 16 came into effect as a result of which Parts IX and IX-A were introduced in the Constitution. Gujarat Municipalities Act was amended on 20.8.1993 in view of the insertion of Parts IX and IX-A in the Constitution, as a result of which an industrial area under the Gujarat Industrial Development Act, which is notified under Section 16 of the Gujarat Industrial Development Act would become a notified area under the new Section 264-A of the Gujarat Municipalities Act and would mean an industrial township area under the proviso to clause (1) of Article 243-Q of the Constitution of India. Grama Panchayat contended that the notification issued under Section 16 of the Act is contrary to Parts IX and IX-A of the Constitution brought into force by the 73rd and 74th Amendments. The apex court held that once the area is deemed notified area under the Gujarat Municipalities Act,1964 it is equated with an industrial township under Part IX-A of the Constitution where municipal services may be provided by industries. Hence the court took the view that there is no violation of any constitutional provisions of the Scheme . Facts of the above mentioned case may not directly apply to the instant case but the principle laid down by the apex court would support the plea of such exclusion as has been done in sub- section (2) of Section 1 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act.
13. Panchayat in this case has raised a contention that excessive use WPC 27334/03 and 27736/04 17 of groundwater by the petitioner is creating acute water shortage in the area and under such circumstances the Panchayat has taken steps to cancel the licence. Panchayat, in our view, has no jurisdiction in the matter of issue or renewal of licence to the petitioner's factory since the legislature in its wisdom has excluded the area in question from the purview of the Panchayat Raj Act in view of sub-section (2) of Section 1 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act. Courts cannot be blamed for this predicament, the legislature and the executive in their wisdom excluded the industrial area from the purview of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, with the result that the Panchayat cannot take steps under the Panchayat Raj Act.
14. We may however point out that the apprehension voiced by the Panchayat cannot be lost sight of and calls for the attention of the authorities functioning under the Kerala Ground Water (Control and Regulation) Act, 2000 as well as the Board constituted under the Development Act. Ground Water (Control and Regulation) Act has been enacted to provide for the conservation of ground water and for the regulation and control of its extraction and use in the State of Kerala. Right to live enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution implies right to food, water etc. Providing drinking water is the concern of the Panchayat as well as the State. Since they have expressed their concern of depletion of WPC 27334/03 and 27736/04 18 groundwater the authorities functioning under the Ground Water Act have a duty to examine whether petitioner is using excessive groundwater so as to deplete the water source affecting the people who are living in the Panchayat area. Panchayat as well as the authorities functioning under the Groundwater Act are equally concerned with the welfare of the people who are residing in the Panchayat area, a matter which can always be taken up by the Panchayat before the authorities functioning under the Ground Water Act.
14. We have already found that the second respondent Panchayat has no jurisdiction under the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act in the matter of issue or cancellation of licence. Petitioner's industry is situated in an industrial area as notified by the Government in the notification dated 24.07.2001. In such circumstances, we are inclined to allow both the writ petitions declaring Ext. P10 in W.P.C. No 27334 of 2003 and Ext. P6 in W.P.C. No 27736 of 2004 are issued without jurisdiction and they are accordingly quashed. Sd/- K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN Ag. Chief Justice Sd/- M.N. KRISHNAN 10/04/2007 Judge en/ WPC 27334/03 and 27736/04 19 W.P.C. No 27334 of 2003 APPENDIX Petitioner's exhibits;: Ext.P1 - True copy of the application filed by the petitioner to the Single Window Clearance Board dated Nil. Ext.P2 - True copy of the letter dated 30.10.2000 issued by the fourth respondent. Ext.P3 - True copy of the letter dated 2.11.2000 No 48498/M2/2000/LSGD by the first respondent. Ext.P4 - True copy of the licence dated 22.11.2000 issued to the petitioner by the second respondent Panchayat pursuant to the directions of the Board and valid for a period of five years from 2000-01 to 2004-05. Ext.P5 - True copy of the show cause notice dated 20.05.2003 issued by the second respondent. Ext.P6 - True copy of the letter dated 29.05.2003 of the convenor of the Single Window Clearance Board to the Secretary of the second respondent Panchayat. Ext.P7 - True copy of the reply to the Ext P5 dated 3.6.2003 together with its annexures. Ext.P8 - True copy of the questionnaire issued to the petitioner by the Secretary of the second respondent Panchayat dated nil. Ext.P9 - True copy of the reply dated 16.7.2003 furnished by the petitioner to the questionnaire as mentioned in Ext P8 herein. Ext.P10 - True copy of ;the order No A4-353/2003 dated 22.08.2003 of the second respondent Panchayat to the petitioner. Ext.P11 - True copy of the report on ground water conditions at Pepsico India Holdings (P) Ltd. Wise Park, Industrial Development Area, Kanjikode dated 19.08.2003 Ext.P12 - True copy of report on Environmental Impact Assessment on the ground water pumping at the petitioner's plant prepared by Dr N. Kittu,Member (Retd) Central Ground Water Board, dated Nil Ext.P13 - True copy of the diagrammatical map showing the dyke zone and geographical distance between petitioner's plant and surrounding villages dated Nil Ext.P14 - True copy of the diagrammatical map demonstrating the rainwater WPC 27334/03 and 27736/04 20 harvesting initiated by the petitioner's plant and the recharge of the bore wells, dated Nil. Ext.P16 - True copy of the statement showing ground water level in borewells 2001-2004 Ext.P17 - True copy of the statement showing details of water recharge through various structures. Ext.P18 - True copy of the statement showing rainfall at Kanjikode 1993- 2004. Second Respondent's exhibits: Ext.R2(a) - True copy of the order No 262/2000 dated 5.5.2000 of the Secretary of second respondent Panchayat. Ext.R2(b) - True copy of the letter dated 13.3.2000 of the petitioner company to the Panchayat requesting order for setting up bottling plant. Ext.R2(c) True copy of application dated 12.03.2000 of petitioner company to the Panchayat for sanction to construct building and install motor. Ext.R2(d) - True copy of licence dated 22.11.2000 issued to the petitioner company by the second respondent Panchayat. Ext.R2(e) - True copy of letter dated 2.2.2001 of petitioner company to the second respondent for change of name in Ext. R2(d) Ext.R2(f) - True copy of letter dated 25.9.2001 of the petitioner company tot he second respondent for change of name as Aradhana Beverages Manufacturing Company Ext.R2(g) - True copy of letter dated 01.11.2001 of petitioner company for second respondent requesting for licence with further changed name. Ext.R2(h) - True copy of letter dated 21.11.2001 of the petitioner company to the second respondent requesting for permission to use crown, closures, labels etc. Ext.R2(i) - True copy of table showing fall of water level in open well No 142 of second respondent Panchayat Ext.R2(j) series - True copies of representations of local people to second respondent showing scarcity of water. Ext.R2(k) - True copy of proceedings No LR(E)2216/03 dated 5.3.2003 of Commission of Land Revenue declaring Palakkad districts as drought stricken area. Ext.R2(l) - True copy of table showing rain fall data from 1999-2002 in the Walayar Dam Area issued by the Executive Engineer, Irrigation Division, WPC 27334/03 and 27736/04 21 Chittoor, Palakkad Ext.R2(m) - True copy of the letter dated 23.2.2004 of the Kerala State Pollution Control Board to the petitioner. Ext.R2(n) - True copy of the renewal of consent dated 6.4.2002 from the State Pollution Control Board to the petitioner company with annexures. Ext.R2(o)- True copy of the news report in Mathrubhoomi Cochin Edition dated 17.10.2003 Ext.R2(p) - True copy of order G.O(Rt) No 672/2001/ID dated 24.7.2001 Ext. R2(q)- True copy of the proceedings dated 30.3.2005 of the Commissioner of Land Revenue Third respondent's exhibits: Ext.R3 (a) - True copy of statutory notification GO(Rt)No 672/2001/ID dated 24/07/2001 issued by the first respondent. [true copy] WPC 27334/03 and 27736/04 22 W.P.C. No 27736 of 2004 Appendix Petitioner's exhibits: Ext.P1 -True copy of permit issued to the petitioner by the second respondent Panchayat vide Order No 262/2000 dated 05.05.2000 Ext.P2 - True copy of the Notification G.O.(Rt)No 672/2001-ID dated 24.07.01(SRO 730/2001) Ext.P3- True copy of writ petition (Civil) No 8897 of 2004 dated 12.03.2004 as a public interest litigation. Ext.P4 - True copy of show cause notice No A4-262/2000-04 dated 20.04.2004 issued by the 2nd respondent Panchayat Ext.P5 - True copy of the reply to Ext P4 show cause notice dated April 24,2004 Ext.P6 - True copy of the order dated 15.9.2004 No A4-262/04 of the second respondent Panchayat with its enclosures. Ext.P7 - True copy of the interim order dated 22.04.2004 of the Division Bench of this court in W.P.(C) No 27334 of 2003 Second respondent's exhibits: Ext. R2(a) - True copy of the application dated 12.3.2000 of the petitioner. Ext.R2(b) - True copy of the letter dated 13.3.2000 issued by the petitioner to the Panchayat President, Pudussery Central Village. Ext.R2(c) - True copy of the letter No 3934 dated 30.10.2000 of the Alternate Executive Officer, State Single Window Clearance Board. Ext.R2(d) - True copy of the letter No 48498/M2/2000/LSGD dated 2.11.2000 of the Secretary to Government, Local Self Government Department. Ext.R2(f) - True copy of the letter of request of the company dated 2.2.2001 Ext.R2(g)- True copy of the letter dated 25.9.2001 issued to the Secretary Pudussery Panchayat, Pudussery Ext.R2(h) - True copy of the letter dated 1.11.2001 received by the second respondent from the company. WPC 27334/03 and 27736/04 23 Ext.R2(i) - True copy of the proceedings No LR(E) 2.216/03 dated 5.3.2003 of the Commissioner of Land Revenue Ext.R2(j)- True copy of the rainfall data in the office of the Executive Engineer, Irrigation Division, Chittur from 1999-2002 Ext.R2(k) - True copy of the table showing fall of water level in open well No 142 Ext.R2(l) - True copy of the page 12 of Ext P1 and page 21 and 22 of Ext P7 in OP 27334/2003 of the petitioner. Ext.R2(m) - True copy of the notice No PCB /H&R/PLKD /257/02 dated 26.4.2004 issued by the second respondent. Ext.R2(n) - True copy of the Order dated 11.2.2004 in W.P.(C)No 27334 of 2003 of this court. [true copy]
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.