SUDHEER.S vs STATE OF KERALA

Court: Kerala High Court
Decided on: 01-04-2026

<div> WP(C) NO.34275 OF 2025 1 2026:KER:28842 “CR” IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN ST WEDNESDAY, THE 1 DAY OF APRIL 2026 / 11TH CHAITHRA, 1948 WP(C) NO. 34275 OF 2025 PETITIONER/S: 1 SUDHEER.S AGED 45 YEARS S/O SAIFUDHEEN, SASI MANDIRAM, CHARUMKUZHI, ADAYAMON.P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 695614 2 THAJUDHEEN.A., AGED 64 YEARS S/O ALIKANNU, THOPPIL HOUSE, ADAYAMON.P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 695614 BY ADVS. SHRI.AJITH KRISHNAN SRI.RENJITH THAMPAN (SR.) RESPONDENT/S: 1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001 2 DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATS WP(C) NO.34275 OF 2025 2 2026:KER:28842 DIRECTORATE OF PANCHAYATH, PUBLIC OFFICE BUILDING, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695033 3 DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATS, DIRECTORATE OF PANCHAYATH, PUBLIC OFFICE BUILDING, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695033 4 NELLANAD GRAMAPANCHAYATH REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PANCHAYATHOFFICE, VENJARAMOOD.P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695607 5 SECRETARY, NELLANAD GRAMAPANCHAYATH PANCHAYATH OFFICE, VENJARAMOOD.P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695607 6 ADDL.R6: RAHUL B.RAJ, S/O.DHARMARAJAN, GREESHMA BHAVAN, CHERUKOTTUKONAM, VINJARMOODU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -695 607. 7 ADDL.R7: BIJU T.S., S/O.THANKAPPAN, PANDIYANCHIRA, VALIYAKATTAKKAL, VINJARAMOODU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 607. 8 ADDL.R8: VAISAKH S., S/O.SATHEESHAN, S.S.BHAVAN, VALIYAKATTAKKAL, VINJARAMOODU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -695 607. 9 ADDL.R9: DEEPAK B. S., S/O.BHUVENDRAN, DEEPAK BHAVAN, VALIYAKATTAK VINJARAMOODU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -695 607. 0 ADDL.R10: SAINU CHANDIR, S/O.RAJAN, GEETHALAYAM, MAILAKUZHI, VINJARAMOODU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -695 607. 11 ADDL.R11: SHIBIN U.S., S/O.SHIVANNANDAN, MATHRUSMARANA, VALIYAKATTAKKAL, VINJARAMOODU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 607. 12 ADDL.R12: AJAYAKUMAR, S/O.RAGHUMATHAN, KUMAR VILASAM, VALIYAKATTAKKAL, WP(C) NO.34275 OF 2025 3 2026:KER:28842 VINJARAMOODU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -695 607. 13 ADDL.R13: SATHEESAN, S/O.KRISHNAN, S.S.BHAVAN, VALIYAKATTAKKAL, VINJARAMOODU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 607. 14 ADDL.R14: C.ARJUNAN, S/O.CHELLAPPAN, NELLIPALLY VEEDU, VINJARAMOODU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -695 607. 15 ADDL.R15: SUDHARSANAN, S/O.KESHAVAN, S.S.BHAVAN, VALIYAKATTAKKAL, VINJARAMOODU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 607. 16 ADDL.R16: LIJOY S., S/O.SATHEENA, UTHRADAM, VALIYAKATTAKKAL, VINJARAMOODU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 607 (ADDL.R6 TO R16 ARE IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 17.10.2025 IN IA NO.1/2025 IN WP(C) NO.34275/2025). BY ADVS. SRI.M.H.HANIL KUMAR SHRI.KALEESWARAM RAJ KUM.THULASI K. RAJ SMT.APARNA NARAYAN MENON SMT.CHINNU MARIA ANTONY OTHER PRESENT: SR.RENJITH THAMPAN,SR. SRI.M.H.HANIL KUMAR,GP THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) FINALLY HEARD ON 24.03.2026, THE COURT ON 01.04.2026 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO.34275 OF 2025 4 2026:KER:28842 “CR” P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J -------------------------------- W.P(C) No. 34275 of 2025 ------------------------------- st Dated this the 1 day of April, 2026 JUDGMENT This case unveils the poignant story of two entrepreneurs whose dream to start an industrial unit with most modern machinery was stifled, not by law or authorities who have to decide whether there is any chance of pollution or environmental problems, but by the tumult of a handful of neighbours residing about 150 meters away from the unit and consequently the representatives of the local authority are afraid to take a decision in accordance with law . Our state, Kerala, is known as God’s Own Country. It is famous for its lush green beauty. But the state also wants industries that don't affect this natural charm. However, there is a general allegation WP(C) NO.34275 OF 2025 5 2026:KER:28842 that industries will not progress in Kerala because of people's protests and trade unionism, but, in reality, our industrial growth has been commendable in recent times. The credit goes to all Keralites and, of course, to political parties and their leaders who were in power at different periods, irrespective of the colour of their parties, and who always convinced the people of the necessity of industries in our state for our economic growth. But these isolated instances will definitely discourage entrepreneurs from investing in our state. Some political parties and elected representatives fear that siding with industry in an area will cost them their vote bank there. This is the General Election time in Kerala. The political parties and the candidates should tell the electorate and get their mandate by saying that, if they are elected, no entrepreneur in Kerala who has obtained all statutory clearances from all authorities, including pollution and environment authorities, will be forced to close down their unit because of the protest of a WP(C) NO.34275 OF 2025 6 2026:KER:28842 handful of people if their apprehension has no basis. It is the duty of the elected representatives to convince the electorate at the time of the election itself that, once statutory clearance is obtained, nothing will happen, and industrial growth is the need of the hour in our state. As I said earlier, this is a sad story of two entrepreneurs who invested crores of rupees in establishing a Hotmix Plant. The present case presents the predicament of an entrepreneur who, in compliance with all known statut ory prescriptions, invested several crores of rupees to establish an industrial unit in the State. The records disclose that he secured all necessary licenses, clearances, and permits from the competent authorities after undergoing a prolonged and exacting scrutiny. It is not in dispute that no violation of environmental norms, pollution standards or other statutory violations has been alleged by any statutory authority. The unit, though complete in all physical respects with most modern machinery, has not WP(C) NO.34275 OF 2025 7 2026:KER:28842 been permitted to commence operations by the local Grama Panchayat due to public protests. What was conceived as an economic activity has been reduced to a vast, voiceless structure of concrete and steel due to public protest, which lacks scientific or environmental backing. The gates that were designed to open daily for workmen now remain locked, guarding only the idle machinery and gathering dust. But the papers before this Court reveal a deeper loss, the steady erosion of confidence in the rule of law. When approvals granted under the existing legal framework are rendered meaningless by extra-legal pressure, the very legitimacy of that framework is called into question. Public dissent has its rightful place in a constitutional democracy, but without a lawful basis, a venture that satisfies every statutory command cannot be shut down on the basis of public protest. If such a course is tolerated, investment will be deterred, employment opportunities will wither, and law-abiding enterprises will be WP(C) NO.34275 OF 2025 8 2026:KER:28842 taught the wrong lesson that compliance is not protection. The petitioner's grievance is therefore not merely personal; it reflects a systemic concern that governmental assurances, once acted upon, may evaporate at the threshold of implementation. It is this concern that now requires judicial address in this Writ Petition. 2. I will narrate the facts in brief: The first petitioner, Sudheer. S, has intended to start a proprietary concern of a Drum Mix Plant of 20 KW. For the purpose of establishing the st said proprietary hot mix plant, the 1 petitioner has filed an application under Section 233 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, st 1994 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act, 1994’) before the 1 st respondent Panchayat. The 1 respondent, as per Ext.P5 letter, sought a report from the District Medical Officer and, as per Ext.P6 letter, sought a report from the Kerala State Pollution Control Board (hereinafter referred to as ‘PCB’). The District Medical Officer, as per Ext.P7, informed that there is no WP(C) NO.34275 OF 2025 9 2026:KER:28842 objection to the establishment of the industrial unit. The PCB had issued consent to operate, as evident from Ext.P8 on st 04.05.2017. Since the 1 petitioner had filed an application to establish the unit on 06.02.2017 and no intimation was issued within 30 days by the Panchayat, it is the case of the petitioners that the 1st petitioner has been deemed to have obtained permission under Section 236 of the Act, 1994, to st establish the unit as a proprietary concern. Hence, the 1 petitioner had established the hot mix plant in the year 2017, is the submission. But, as per the decision dated 10.05.2017, as evident from Ext.P9, the Panchayat Committee rejected the application of the 1st petitioner on the ground that there was a public protest. Ext.P10 is the intimation issued by the Secretary of the Panchayat to the petitioner. According to the petitioners, since the 1st petitioner submitted an application on 06.02.2017 for establishing a proprietary concern, and no intimation was issued within 30 days, the said permission is deemed to have WP(C) NO.34275 OF 2025 10 2026:KER:28842 been granted under Section 236 of the Act, 1994, dehors Ext.P10. 3. Hence, aggrieved by Ext.P10, the petitioner filed a revision before the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions (hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal’) and the Tribunal stayed Ext.P10 by order dated 16.05.2017, as evident by Ext.P11. Despite Ext.P11, the Panchayat issued a stop memo to the petitioner on 29.05.2017, as evident from Ext.P12. On the basis of Ext.P12 stop memo, some of the persons who have an axe to grind against the petitioner have obstructed the functioning of the unit, is the submission. Therefore, the petitioner approached this Court and this Court, as per Ext.P.13 judgment, granted police protection for the st functioning of the 1 petitioner’s proprietary concern, is the further submission. 4. In the meanwhile, it is submitted that, by abundant st caution, the 1 petitioner, as a proprietor, had, on 28.01.2018, WP(C) NO.34275 OF 2025 11 2026:KER:28842 again filed an application under Section 233 of the Act, 1994, as well as an application dated 24.01.2018 for a D&O licence, as evident from Exts.P14 and P15. In the meantime, the Tribunal disposed of RP No. 55/2017 and passed an order on 31.01.2018. That order is not produced in the Writ Petition. It is submitted by the petitioners that, in the said judgment, the Tribunal directed that the Panchayat shall not interfere with the st functioning of the 1 petitioner’s tar mixing unit till a decision is taken on Ext.P14. The operative portion of the order of the Tribunal is extracted in paragraph No.9 of the Writ Petition, which is extracted hereunder also: “Considering the findings in point No.1, revision petition is only liable to be dismissed. In the result, the revision petition is dismissed. Anyway accepting the submission of the learned counsel for revision petitioner, the respondent is directed not to interfere with the functioning of the tar mixing unit of the petitioner till the disposal of the application under Sec.233 of the Kerala panchayath Raj act dated 28.01.2018 submitted before the respondent on 29.01.2018 within the statutory limit”. WP(C) NO.34275 OF 2025 12 2026:KER:28842 st 5. Based on the above-said order, the 1 petitioner was permitted to continue the tar mix unit, is the submission. It is submitted that no orders were passed on the Ext.P14 application and hence in view of Section 236 of the Act, 1994, again, there is a deemed sanction, is the submission. st Accordingly, the 1 petitioner was continuing the unit as a proprietary concern without any obstruction, is the submission. 6. In the meanwhile, petitioners 1 and 2 entered into a partnership and formed a partnership firm in the name and style ‘N&T Tar Hotmix Plant’. Ext.P16 is the acknowledgement of registration issued by the Registrar of Firms. According to the petitioners, after the establishment of the partnership firm ‘N&T Tar Hotmix plant’, the partnership firm has decided to st install new machinery and modern facilities. The 1 petitioner has decided to discontinue the proprietary concern, continue as a partnership with the 2nd petitioner, and install new machinery. WP(C) NO.34275 OF 2025 13 2026:KER:28842 7. The petitioners have purchased an ultra-modern hot mix plant (batch mix plant), spending more than Rs. 5 crore. Ext.P17 invoice is produced to prove the same. After the aforesaid machinery was brought to the petitioners' unit, the petitioners' firm entered into an agreement with the owners of the land for installing the said batch mix plant on 8.3 acres of land, as evident from Ext.P18, the rent agreement dated 20.04.2022, which is the submission. It is also submitted that a fresh application under Section 233 of the Act, 1994, was submitted by the petitioners to the Panchayat on 21.06.2022, as evident by Ext.P19. Since Ext.P19 is dated 21.06.2022, the Panchayat has to take a decision on or before 20.07.2022, it is submitted. 8. According to the petitioners, in view of the amendment to Section 233(4) of the Act, 1994, as per Act 14 of 2018, the Panchayat cannot reject the application but can only impose conditions while considering the application. Since WP(C) NO.34275 OF 2025 14 2026:KER:28842 no intimation was received by the petitioners on or before 20.07.2022, after the application dated 21.06.2022 under Section 233 of the Act, 1994, in view of Section 236(3) of the Act, 1994, the said permission is deemed to have been granted, is the submission. However, much thereafter, on 24.01.2023, the Panchayat issued a stop memo as evident by Ext.P20. Against Ext.P20, the petitioners had filed an appeal before the Tribunal for Local Self-Government Institutions (for short, ‘Tribunal’) as Appeal No.157/2023, and the Tribunal had stayed that stop memo, as evident by Ext.P21, is the submission. It is also submitted that the stay order is even now in force. In the meantime, the Pollution Control Board granted consent to operate the establishment of the petitioners' firm on 13.03.2023, as evident by Ext.P22. But certain persons obstructed the functioning of the petitioners’ unit, and the petitioners had filed WP(C) No. .15965/2024 before this Court for police protection. This Court, by order dated 16.04.2024, WP(C) NO.34275 OF 2025 15 2026:KER:28842 directed the police to maintain law and order. 9. When the case came up for consideration on 19.06.2024, it was submitted by the respondent that there is no trade license for the petitioners. This Court clarified that the interim order will continue only if there is a valid license. According to the petitioner, the trade license issued to the petitioners is valid for 5 years. However, the petitioners had withdrawn the said writ petition, with liberty to approach this Court again. With abundant caution, the petitioner again filed an application on 21.06.2024 under Sections 232 and 233 of the Act, 1994, which was rejected by the Panchayat the very next day. Ext. P23 is the application for the licence dated 21.06.2024. 10. In the meanwhile, the petitioners had filed an application under the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act (for short, ‘MSME Act’), and obtained an acknowledgement certificate dated 25.06.2024, as evident by WP(C) NO.34275 OF 2025 16 2026:KER:28842 Ext.P24. On the basis of the Ext.P24 certificate, the petitioners approached this Court by filing WP(C) No. 23320/2024 for police protection for the operation of the hot mix plant. However, it is submitted that this Court held that the acknowledgement certificate under the MSME Act is applicable only to new units, and not to units already in operation. The above judgment of this Court is produced as Ext.P25. A writ appeal filed against the same was withdrawn by the petitioners. 11. Faced with the aforesaid situation, the petitioners had again filed an application under Section 233 of the Act, 1994, and Ext.P26 is the relevant page of the application filed by the petitioners, and Ext.P27 is the receipt dated 17.05.2025, showing the receipt of the application. When Ext.P26 was considered, the Panchayat committee took the stand that the application under Section 233 of the Act, 1994, cannot be allowed due to apprehensions among the local people that it will create serious health problems. Ext.P28 is the decision of WP(C) NO.34275 OF 2025 17 2026:KER:28842 th the 4 respondent Panchayat. Ext.P29 is the intimation issued by the Secretary of the Panchayat on 30.05.2025, communicating Ext.P28. 12. According to the petitioners, as per the letter dated 06.02.2025, the District Medical Officer has certified that there are no health issues if the petitioners' unit starts functioning. Ext.P30 is the sanitary certificate issued by the Health Inspector on 23.06.2025. In the meantime, an allegation was made that the building in which the petitioners’ unit's office is functioning is a residential building. It is the case of the petitioners that the Panchayat had issued commercial occupancy to the building and granted additional building No. 10/516A, and to prove the same, the petitioners produced Ext.P31, the building tax receipt. 13. In such circumstances, the petitioners filed W.P.(C) No. 21247/2025 before this Court challenging Ext.P28 decision of the Panchayat. This Court had disposed of the above writ WP(C) NO.34275 OF 2025 18 2026:KER:28842 petition by Ext.P1 judgment. In Ext.P1 judgment, this Court found that the Panchayat has only the power to either grant permission absolutely or grant permission with conditions. 14. According to the petitioners, this Court found that the decision of the Panchayat is vitiated, because it is without following the procedures contemplated under Section 233 of the Act, 1994, and without considering the report of the Government Authority. After these observations, by Ext.P1 judgment, this Court set aside Ext.P28 order and further directed the Panchayat to reconsider afresh Ext.P26, as per the procedure laid down under Section 233 of the Act, 1994. On the basis of Ext.P1 directions, the petitioners filed a detailed note of arguments and produced the pleadings in the writ petition before the Panchayat. However, the Panchayat rejected that application. Ext.P3 is the resolution of the Panchayat, and the Panchayat has taken a stand that the application is for permission for 130 HP machinery. In Ext.P3, the Panchayat WP(C) NO.34275 OF 2025 19 2026:KER:28842 committee, without any authority, holds that the aforesaid 130 HP machinery was installed prior to 2018, and hence, the Panchayat committee had the authority to reject the application up to 2018. 15. Because of the aforesaid situation, the Panchayat Committee illegally assumed the authority to reject the application, which the Panchayat Committee does not have the power to do, after the amendment to Section 233 of the Act 1994 in the light of Act 14 of 2018, is the submission. Aggrieved by Exts.P3 and P4, this writ petition is filed. 16. Heard, Adv. Sri. Renjith Thamban, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, assisted by Adv. Sri. Ajith Krishnan, Sri, M.H. Hanilkumar, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 4 and 5 and also Adv. Sri. Kaleeswaram Raj, the learned counsel appearing for the party respondents. I also heard the learned Government Pleader. 17. The learned Senior Counsel, Sri. Renjith Thamban WP(C) NO.34275 OF 2025 20 2026:KER:28842 raised twofold contentions. The Senior Counsel submitted that Ext.P3 decision of the Panchayat is nothing but a clear violation of the directions in Ext.P1 judgment of this Court. The Senior Counsel also submitted that, even if, for argument's sake, it is accepted that there is no violation of the Ext.P1 judgment, the Ext.P3 decision of the Panchayat will not stand for other reasons as well. The counsel also submitted that the Panchayat proceeded on the basis that the petitioners had submitted an application for a permit before the amendment of Section 233 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (for short “Act 1994”). According to the Senior Counsel, the application considered by the Panchayat is one submitted subsequent to the amendment to Section 233 of the Act 1994, as per Act 14 of 2018. The Senior Counsel also takes me through the Exhibits produced along with the writ petition to substantiate his case. 18. Adv. Sri. Kaleeswaram Raj, argued the matter in detail. In addition to the oral argument, Adv. Raj also WP(C) NO.34275 OF 2025 21 2026:KER:28842 submitted an additional written submission. The main contentions of Adv. Raj, in his oral argument, which is reiterated in the additional written submission, are the following: “I. In Ext.P1 judgment, there was only an open remand back to respondent Panchayat to reconsider and there was no direction to grant license to the petitioners. II. There is no interference with the findings in Ext.R10(a) and the Panchayat is bound by the said findings and cannot take a decision ignoring the same. III. The District Collector’s report in WA No.1244/2024 remains unchallenged and it has attained finality. IV. A Hot Tar Mix Plant causes serious hazards to the nearby inhabitants. V. Once the direction in Ext.P1 judgment was complied with, no review against the said judgment would lie. VI. The issue regarding the power of the Panchayat to refuse permission for licenses is presently pending consideration before the Full Bench of this Hon’ble Court. VII. The petitioners have not availed the alternate efficacious remedy available to them. VIII. The contentions of the Panchayat in their counter affidavit remain uncontroverted and the petitioners have not rebutted the said contentions. IX. The unit of the petitioners is a moving unit and can be WP(C) NO.34275 OF 2025 22 2026:KER:28842 shifted far away from human settlements, after obtaining proper and valid permissions.” Adv. Sri. Kaleeswaram Raj also takes me through the counter affidavit filed by his clients. 19. Adv. Sri. Hanilkumar, the learned Standing Counsel for the Panchayat, also supported the argument of Adv. Kaleeswaram Raj. Adv. Hanil Kumar also submitted that the Panchayat has filed a detailed counter, and he took me through it. The main contention of Adv. Hanilkumar is that, the writ petition is not maintainable because an alternative remedy is available and the petitioners have not availed the same. It is also submitted by Adv. Hanil Kumar that the petitioners have not obtained any installation permit and license from the Panchayat, and they constructed several buildings without obtaining any valid building permit from the Panchayat. It is also submitted by the counsel that the Panchayat granted building number 10/516 to the owner of the property for a WP(C) NO.34275 OF 2025 23 2026:KER:28842 residential building, and the said building cannot be used for any commercial or industrial purpose, because a hot mix plant does not fall under the residential category. It is also submitted by the Standing Counsel appearing for the Panchayat that, after perusing the records, it is found that the tar mixing unit was installed in March 2017 without the Panchayat's permission, and the Panchayat issued stop memos immediately upon receipt of the complaints to stop its functioning. The stop memos were issued on 16.06.2022 and 24.01.2023, when the petitioners attempted to operate the unit is the submission. 20. This Court considered the contentions of the petitioners and the respondents. This Court also perused the pleadings and documents relied upon by the petitioners. 21. The impugned order in this writ petition is Ext.P3 th order passed by the 4 respondent Panchayat. It is a decision taken by the Panchayat in accordance with the directions issued by this Court in Ext. P1 judgment. In the Ext.P1 WP(C) NO.34275 OF 2025 24 2026:KER:28842 judgment, this Court directed that the Ext.R1(d) application produced in that writ petition is to be reconsidered within 60 days. This Court also discussed in detail the powers of the Panchayat under Section 233(3) of the Act 1994, in the light of the amendment under Act 14 of 2018. 22. A perusal of the Ext.P3 order would show that the st license application was rejected mainly for two reasons. The 1 reason is that the amendment carried out in Section 233 of the Act 1994, based on Act 14 of 2018, is not applicable to the petitioners' application, as the machinery was already installed by the petitioners before Act 14 of 2018 came into force. The second ground mentioned in the impugned order is that the petitioners installed machinery with a capacity of 130 HP without the Panchayat's permission. 23. I will consider the first objection raised by the Panchayat in Ext.P3 to reject the application of the petitioners. According to the Panchayat, the machinery was installed by the WP(C) NO.34275 OF 2025 25 2026:KER:28842 petitioners before Act 14 of 2018 came into force, and consequently, the amendment to Section 233 based on Act 14 of 2018 is not applicable to the petitioners' application in this case. This Court, as per the Ext.P1 judgment, directed to reconsider the Ext.R1(d) application submitted by the petitioners. Ext.R1(d) produced in Ext.P1 proceedings is Ext.P26 in this writ petition. Ext.P26 is undated, but a receipt showing the acceptance of Ext.P26 is produced as Ext.P27, and the same is dated 17.05.2025. Therefore, the Panchayat is directed to consider the application dated 17.05.2025, which is produced in this writ petition as Ext.P26 (which is Ext.R1(d) in the writ petition, which led to Ext.P1 judgment). 24. Admittedly, the Act 14 of 2018 came into force in the year 2018. Therefore, the Ext.P26 application, which was filed on 17.05.2025, is to be considered based on the law in force as of the date of Ext.P26. For that reason itself, the finding in Ext.P3 is to be rejected. WP(C) NO.34275 OF 2025 26 2026:KER:28842 25. In addition to that, the applicants in the Ext.P26 application are the petitioners 1 and 2 in this writ petition. The partnership between the petitioners 1 and 2 came into existence only on 04.06.2022, as evident from Ext.P16, the acknowledgement of registration issued by the Registrar of Firms. The petitioners formed the partnership firm in the name and style ‘N & T Tar Hotmix Plant’ and registered the same before the Registrar of Firms on 04.06.2022. Therefore, the applicants in Ext.P26, who were partners of N & T Tar Hotmix Plant, became partners only from 04.06.2022, which is admittedly after the Act 14 of 2018 came into force. 26. It is also stated in Ext.P3 that the machinery were installed in 2017. But, according to the petitioners, the ultra model hot mix plant was purchased based on the invoice dated 25.03.2022, as evident by Ext.P17. How can a new piece of machinery purchased as per Ext.P17 invoice on 25.03.2022 be installed in 2017 by the petitioners? That shows that the WP(C) NO.34275 OF 2025 27 2026:KER:28842 Panchayat is trying to find a reason to reject the application. Therefore, the statement in Ext.P3 that the machinery was installed in 2017 cannot be accepted at all, for the simple reason that the firm in the name of N&T Turbo Hotmix Plant was formed only on 04.06.2022, and the ultramodel hot mix plant was purchased only on 25.03.2022. Therefore, the statement in Ext.P3 that the application for a license was submitted after the machinery was installed in 2017 will not stand in light of Exts.P16 and P17. 27. I think the Panchayat is confused with the application st submitted by the 1 petitioner alone in the year 2017 under Section 233 of the Act 1994 as a proprietary concern, and the application submitted by the petitioners together after forming the partnership firm on 17.05.2025. It would be better to narrate the sequence of events up to Ext.P16, the acknowledgement of registration issued by the Registrar of Firms on 04.06.2022, the date on which the firm was WP(C) NO.34275 OF 2025 28 2026:KER:28842 registered. st 28. The 1 petitioner, Sudheer S, decided to start a proprietary concern of a Hot mix plant of 20 KW originally and st for the purpose of establishing the said Hot mix plant, the 1 petitioner filed an application under Section 233 of the Act, st 1994, before the 1 respondent, Panchayat, in the year 2017. The Panchayat issued Ext.P5, the letter dated 09.02.2017, to the District Medical Officer, Thiruvananthapuram, for obtaining a NOC. The Panchayat also issued Ext.P6, the letter dated 9.2.2017, to the Pollution Control Board for obtaining consent. Thereafter, the District Medical Officer, as per Ext.P7, issued a st No-objection Certificate to the 1 petitioner for starting a tar mixing unit. For clarity, it would be better to extract the relevant portion of Ext.P7, namely the No-objection certificate issued by the District Medical Officer on 17.4.2017. “ മമേൽ സൂചനകൾ പ്രകകാരരം നനടുമേങകാട് തകാലൂകക്കിൽ നല്ലനകാട് വക്കിമല്ലജക്കിൽ, നനല്ലനകാട് ഗകാമേപഞകായതട് വകാർഡട് X ൽ സർമവ്വേ നമ്പർ 391/1 ൽ നപട്ട 2 ഏകർ സ്ഥലതട് മറകാഡട് ടകാർ നചയ്യുന്ന മേക്കികക്കിരംഗട് യൂണക്കിറട് ആരരംഭക്കിക്കുന്നതക്കിനട് ശശ WP(C) NO.34275 OF 2025 29 2026:KER:28842 സുധശർ എസട്, ശശക്കി മേനക്കിരരം, ചകാരരംകുഴക്കി, അടയമേൺ ഗകാമേപഞകായതട് ഈ ആഫശസക്കിൽ സമേർപക്കിച്ച അമപക്ഷയക്കിമന്മേൽ അമനന്വേഷണരം നടതക്കി തകാനഴപറയുന്ന നക്കിബന്ധനകൾകട് വക്കിമധയമേകായക്കി നക്കിരകാമക്ഷപ പതരം നൽകകാവുന്നതകാണട്. “ 29. I am extracting the above No-objection certificate issued on 17.4.2017 by the District Medical Officer to show that st originally, the 1 petitioner submitted the application for nd starting the hot mix plant, and the 2 petitioner was not in the picture in the year 2017. Ext.P8 is the consent to operate issued by the Pollution Control Board on 7.4.2017, and the st occupier's details mentioned in Ext.P8 are also those of the 1 petitioner alone. Ext.P8 was valid till 30.4.2018. st 30. The contention of the 1 petitioner was that he filed an application to establish the unit on 6.2.2017, and since no intimation was issued within 30 days, the permission is deemed st to have been granted under Sec.236 of the Act, 1994, to the 1 petitioner to establish the unit as a proprietary concern. Based st on that deemed permission, the 1 petitioner established the WP(C) NO.34275 OF 2025 30 2026:KER:28842 hot mix plant in 2017. However, the Panchayat committee, as per Ext. P9 rejected the application of the 1st petitioner on the ground that a public protest had occurred. Ext.P9 is the decision, and Ext.P10 is the intimation issued by the Secretary st st of the Panchayat to the 1 petitioner. According to the 1 petitioner, even if the Ext.P9 decision was taken by the Panchayat committee on 10.5.2017, since the petitioner's application was filed on 6.2.2017 and no order was issued within 30 days, the Ext.P9 decision has no effect. I think that st contention of the 1 petitioner is well-founded. A Division Bench of this Court in Sudhakaran V. v. Pallichal Grama Panchayat and Anr. [2016 (2) KHC 481] observed like this : 14. “The consideration of an application for permission or licence or renewal thereof is available only during the period prescribed for the same and unless the order is communicated within the specified time, either granting the renewal or rejecting the same, the Panchayat cannot exercise jurisdiction to reject the same at a later occasion. Thereafter, the remedy of the Panchayat is only to verify whether the licensee is complying with the conditions WP(C) NO.34275 OF 2025 31 2026:KER:28842 imposed under the licence as per the rules, bye - laws etc." 31. In Abdul Shafeek v. Asamannoor Grama Panchayath and Another [2018 (3) KHC 170], the same issue is also considered. It will be better to extract the relevant portion of the above judgment also. “ 3. The learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Panchayat would contend that, although there was no formal order rejecting the application submitted by the petitioner pursuant to the dismissal of his appeal by the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions, the respondent Panchayat had intimated the petitioner by communication dated 07/05/2018 that his fresh application also continued to be defective in the manner indicated by the Tribunal in the appellate order. It is stated that, inasmuch as the application of the petitioner was inherently defective, the same could not be treated as a valid application for issuing a deemed license in terms of S.236(3) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act. On a consideration of the submissions of the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent, I find that, while it may be a fact that the application submitted by the petitioner was inherently defective, it is also a fact that the respondent Panchayath, which could have rejected the said application of the petitioner on that WP(C) NO.34275 OF 2025 32 2026:KER:28842 g round, did not choose to do so, and thereby kept the application alive beyond the statutory period contemplated under the Panchayat Raj Act for attracting the deeming provision. The decisions of this Court in Rajesh Ramachandran v. Corporation of Trivandrum, 2008 (3) KHC 175 : 2008 (3) KLT 419 : 2008 (2) KLJ 821 : ILR 2008 (3) Ker. 264, which was affirmed by a Division Bench in Sudhakaran v. Pallichal Grama Panchayat, 2016 (2) KHC 481 : 2016 (2) KLT 175 would clearly indicate that if no orders of rejection are passed on an application for permission / license, including a defective one, within the statutory period contemplated under the Act, then by virtue of the provisions of S.236(3), the permission sought for is to be deemed granted and the only recourse available to the respondent Panchayat thereafter, would be to initiate proceedings against the petitioner for a cancellation of the said deemed permission in the event of their noticing that the activities of the petitioner are being carried on in contravention of the conditions of the permission or in violation of the statutory provisions. Thus, I allow the writ petition by declaring that the petitioner is entitled to a deemed permission in accordance with S.236(3) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act. The 2nd respondent shall issue the petitioner with a certificate stating that he has obtained a deemed permission in terms of S.236(3), within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. I make it clear that nothing in this judgment shall stand in the way of the respondent initiating any action for cancellation of the said permission, in the event of their noticing that the petitioner has not complied with the conditions in the WP(C) NO.34275 OF 2025 33 2026:KER:28842 permission or has breached any of the statutory provisions applicable to him. ” 32. In the light of the above dictum laid down by this Court in Sudhakaran's case (supra) and Abdul Shafeek's st st case (supra), the stand of the 1 petitioner that the 1 petitioner was having a deemed license is justified. Therefore, the statement in Ext.P3 that the petitioners did not have any permit in 2017 is incorrect. The 2nd petitioner was not in the picture at that time, and the 1st petitioner had a deemed permission to establish the hot mix plant. 33. Even though Ext.P10 is not valid in the light of the dictum laid down by this Court in Sudhakaran's case (supra) and Abdul Shafeek's case (supra), the petitioners challenged Ext.P10 decision before the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions by filing RP No.55/2017 and the Tribunal stayed the same as evident by Ext.P11 order. In spite of the Ext.P11 stay order, the Panchayat issued a stop memo to the petitioner on WP(C) NO.34275 OF 2025 34 2026:KER:28842 29.5.2017, which is admittedly after Ext.P11 stay order. Ext.P12 is the stop memo. I am of the considered opinion that Ext.P12 stop memo will not stand, in the light of Ext.P11 stay order and also, in the light of the dictum laid down by this Court in Sudhakaran's case (supra) and Abdul Shafeek's case (supra). In the meantime, there was an obstruction to the functioning of the unit of the 1st petitioner, and the 1st petitioner approached this Court by filing a writ petition, WP(C) No.20228/2017, for police protection. This Court, as per the Ext.P13 judgment, granted police protection for the functioning st of the 1 petitioner's proprietary concern. This also shows that nd the 2 petitioner was not in the picture when this Court disposed of WP(C) No.20228/2017, as evident from Ext.P13. st 34. As an abundant caution, it is submitted that the 1 petitioner, as a proprietor, had again filed an application under Section 233 of the Act, 1994 and also for a D&O license. Exts.P14 and P15 are the applications. At this stage, RP WP(C) NO.34275 OF 2025 35 2026:KER:28842 No.55/2017 was disposed of by the Tribunal. The Tribunal did not interfered with the Panchayat's decision. But the 1st petitioner was allowed to function till the disposal of the application submitted by him, as evident from Exts. P14 and P15 applications. The relevant portion of the decision in RP No.55/2017 is extracted in paragraph 4 above in this judgment. 35. From the above decision, it is clear that the Tribunal also directed not to interfere with the functioning of the tar st mixing unit of the 1 petitioner, till the application under Sec.233 of the Act, 1994, is disposed of. That also strengthens the petitioners' contention that the unit was conducted by the 1st petitioner, with a valid permit and in accordance with the Tribunal's orders. Thereafter, the petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 entered into a partnership firm in the name and style of ‘N&T Tar Hot Mix Plant’, as evident from Ext. P16, the acknowledgement of registration. Therefore, it is clear that, till WP(C) NO.34275 OF 2025 36 2026:KER:28842 nd nd 4.6.2022, the 2 petitioner was not in the picture, and the 2 petitioner came into the picture only after 4.6.2022. It is also clear that the machinery was purchased only on 25.3.2022, as evident from Ext.P17. It is further clear that this Court in the Ext.P1 judgment directed to consider the Ext.P26 application dated 17.5.2025. Therefore, the finding in Ext.P3 that the machinery was installed in 2017 by the petitioners and that the petitioners were operating the tar mixing unit without any authority or permit from 2017 cannot be accepted at all. Therefore, the finding in Ext.P3 to that effect is to be set aside in toto. nd 36. The 2 ground mentioned in Ext.P3 also will not stand, in the light of the above discussion. The Panchayat stated in Ext.P3 that 130 HP machinery was installed in 2017 without the Panchayat's permission. As I said earlier, those nd machines were purchased only in 2022. Moreover, the 2 petitioner was not in the picture in the year 2017. Therefore, WP(C) NO.34275 OF 2025 37 2026:KER:28842 the finding in the Ext.P3 decision of the Panchayat to that effect is also not correct. 37. In addition to all these, I am of the considered opinion that the Ext.P3 decision is, in effect, flouting the findings in Ext.P1 judgment. This Court in Ext.P1 judgment considered the impact of the amendment of Section 233 of the Act 1994 in detail. After extracting the amended Section 233 of the Panchayat Raj Act in paragraph 10 of Ext.P1 judgment, this Court observed like this: 11. A reading of above extracted provision substantiates that, the Secretary, on receiving an application to establish a factory/install machinery, has to conduct an enquiry under sub-section (3) of Section 233 and then submit a report to the Village Panchayat regarding any objection based on the density of the population or if it would cause any nuisance or pollution to the people. Then, the Village Panchayat has to grant permission either absolutely or conditionally as it thinks fit. Before granting permission, the Secretary shall obtain and consider reports from the statutory authorities mentioned under sub-section (4) of Section 233. WP(C) NO.34275 OF 2025 38 2026:KER:28842 12. It is pertinent to note that, by Act 14 of 2018, the words “or refusing” have been consciously omitted by the legislature from the erstwhile sub- section (4) of Section 233 of the Act. Thus, it is to be inferred and understood that an application filed under Section 233 has to be absolutely or conditionally allowed and cannot be rejected. 13. In the case at hand, Ext.R1 (d) application, though said to be not considered in the counter affidavit, is rejected by Ext.R1(e) decision and Ext.P11 letter principally for the reason that the functioning of the Plant would cause health problems to the people of the locality. This finding is based on assumptions and conjectures, and prima facie without considering the impact of Act 14 of 2018. The decision-making process stands vitiated because it is without following the procedure contemplated under Section 233 of the Act and without considering the reports of the competent statutory authorities. 14. On a consideration of the facts and the materials on record, and that the above pertinent questions were not considered by the respondents 1 and 2 before the passing of the impugned orders, I am convinced that the alternative statutory remedy is not efficacious and this is a fit case to exercise the discretionary powers of this Court WP(C) NO.34275 OF 2025 39 2026:KER:28842 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, also particularly since the decision-making process is nd erroneous. Accordingly, I hold that the 2 respondent has to consider Ext.R1(d) application afresh, after considering the scope and purport of the above provision and the materials on record. In the aforesaid circumstances, I allow the writ petition by quashing Ext.R1(e) decision and the consequential Ext.P11 letter, and directing the Secretary to reconsider Ext.R1(d) application afresh as per the procedure laid down under Section 233, after adverting to the contentions of the parties. The petitioners are permitted to produce the entire pleadings in this writ petition nd before the 2 respondent with a copy of this judgment. The respondents 1 and 2 are directed to reconsider Ext.R1(d) application, in accordance with law and as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within 60 days from the date of production of a copy of this judgment. The parties are permitted to file their written submissions with the supporting materials before the Village Panchayat, who in turn shall reconsider the matter, untrammelled by any observations made by this Court in this judgment. The writ petition is ordered accordingly. " WP(C) NO.34275 OF 2025 40 2026:KER:28842 38. Now, the Panchayat rejected the application, stating that the amended Section 233 of the Act 1994 is not applicable because the machinery were installed in the year 2017. That finding in Ext.P3 will not stand in the light of the discussion in the earlier paragraphs of this judgment. Moreover, in the Ext.P1 judgment, this Court directed that the Ext.P26 application, dated 17.05.2025, is to be reconsidered by the Panchayat. When this Court directed reconsideration of the application dated 17.05.2025 in the light of the amended Section 233 of the Act, 1994, the Panchayat cannot say that the machinery was installed in 2017 and, therefore, the amendment to Section 233 as per Act 14 of 2018 is not applicable. This is nothing but a clear violation of the directions in the Ext.P1 judgment. When this case came up for consideration on 04.02.2026, it was heard in part on that day. At that stage, the counsel appearing for the respondents 6 to 16 submitted that they intended to file a review against the WP(C) NO.34275 OF 2025 41 2026:KER:28842 Ext.P1 judgment, and accordingly, the case was posted to 19.02.2026. Thereafter, when the case came up for consideration on 19.02.2026, the counsel appearing for respondents 6 to 16 submitted that a review petition had been filed before the Division Bench in the writ appeal because Ext.P1 was challenged by them before the Division Bench and the appeal was withdrawn with liberty to agitate the matter when a fresh cause of action arises. The counsel appearing for the respondents 6 to 16 submitted that in the light of the principle laid down by this Court in Kunhitharuvai Memorial Charitable Trust v Kerala University of Health Sciences [2025 KHC OnLine 2361], the review is to be filed before the Division Bench. Whether the review is to be filed before the Division Bench or before the learned Single Judge to review the Ext.P1 judgment is a matter to be decided by the party respondents. Therefore, the case was again adjourned to 06.03.2026. On 06.03.2026, this Court passed the following WP(C) NO.34275 OF 2025 42 2026:KER:28842 order: " The counsel for the party respondents seeks further adjournment. The same is seriously opposed by the senior counsel who is appearing for the petitioners. The counsel for the party respondents submitted that the review petition is already numbered and the said Bench is not sitting. The party respondents can take steps to list the case, if they are intending to do so. Post finally to 24.03.2026. " 39. When the case came up for consideration on 24.03.2026, the counsel for respondents 6 to 16 submitted that the Division Bench concerned is not sitting, and a request was made to the Registrar General for listing the case. At the insistence of the petitioners' counsel, both sides agreed that the writ petition could be heard dehors the pendency of the review petition, and accordingly, it was heard in detail on 24.03.2026. Now, the Ext.P1 judgment is in existence. The finding in the Ext.P1 judgment is binding on the party respondents. Therefore, in the light of the Ext.P1 judgment, WP(C) NO.34275 OF 2025 43 2026:KER:28842 also, the Ext.P3 order will not stand, and the same is to be set aside. This observation is made by this Court in addition to the finding that the reasoning in Ext.P3 will not stand. 40. Now, I will consider the contentions raised by the party respondents in this case. The first contention is that Ext.P1 judgment is an open remand back to the respondent Panchayat to reconsider, and there was no direction to grant a license to the petitioners and therefore Ext.P3 will stand. In the light of the discussion above, this contention will not stand. As I mentioned earlier, this Court had directed that the Ext.P26 license application dated 17.05.2025 be considered in light of the amendment to Section 233 of the Act 1994 made as per Act 14 of 2018. When such a direction is issued, the Panchayat cannot take the stand that the machinery was installed in 2017 and therefore the application is to be considered under the unamended provision of Section 233 of the Act, 1994. First of all, that argument will not stand in light of the discussion WP(C) NO.34275 OF 2025 44 2026:KER:28842 above, especially in light of Ext.P16, which acknowledges the partnership between the petitioners, and Ext.P17, the invoice by which the machinery was purchased, dated 25.03.2022. The counsel for the party respondents submitted that Ext.P1 is an open remand and therefore the Panchayat can decide the matter independently dehors the observations in the Ext.P1 judgment. Assume, for argument's sake, that the said argument is accepted, since this Court has already found that the findings in Ext.P3, issued by the Panchayat, will not stand, there is no point in considering that contention. Therefore, the counsel for the party respondents' first contention will not stand. 41. The second contention of Adv. Kaleeswaram Raj, is that the Ext. R10(a) judgment has become final, and the Panchayat is bound by the said finding and cannot take a decision in disregard of the same. Ext.R10(a) is already marked by the petitioners in the writ petition as Ext.P25. Then, why the WP(C) NO.34275 OF 2025 45 2026:KER:28842 same is again produced in the counter-affidavit is not clear. This Court perused Ext.P25. Ext P25 is a judgment delivered in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for police protection, relying on Ext.P24, the acknowledgement from the industries department. Admittedly, the Ext.P25 judgment was delivered before the Ext.P26 application submitted by the petitioners, which led to the Ext.P1 judgment. The petitioners filed an application under the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act and obtained an acknowledgement certificate, as evident by Ext.P24. On the basis of the Ext.P24 certificate, the petitioners have approached this Court with the above writ petition for police protection. The same was not entertained by this Court, as evident from Ext.P25, and the writ appeal filed against it was withdrawn by the petitioners. The same is not suppressed by the petitioners, and the Ext.P25 judgment is produced along with the writ petition. At that stage, the petitioners filed WP(C) NO.34275 OF 2025 46 2026:KER:28842 Ext.P26 application, which led to Ext.P1 judgment. The observation in Ext.P25 judgment is made based on Ext.P24 MSME acknowledgement issued by the Department of Industries and Commerce. While arguing the police protection matter, this court answered certain contentions raised by the parties. Thereafter, the Ext P1 judgment was delivered, in which Ext P25 was also referred to. I am of the considered opinion that the same is not binding while deciding this writ petition, which is against the Ext.P3 decision of the Panchayat taken based on Ext.P1 judgment. This Court has to consider whether the Ext.P3 decision is correct or not in the light of the documents produced in this writ petition. I am not aware whether the documents produced in this writ petition were produced in that writ petition. Moreover, it is a decision dismissing the petitioners' application for police protection, and its observations are based solely on the grounds for seeking police protection at that stage. That will not stand in the way of WP(C) NO.34275 OF 2025 47 2026:KER:28842 this court in deciding the matter on merit, based on the contentions raised by the petitioners against Ext. P3. 42. The third contention raised by the respondents is that a report was submitted by the District Collector in W A No.1244 of 2024, which was filed against Ext.P25. The same is produced in this case as Ext.R10(d). It will be better to extract that report: “1. All the allegations and averments made against the respondent except those which are specifically admitted hereunder are incorrect and hence denied. 2. The hot mixing plant mentioned in the order of WA No. 1244/2024 dated 21.08.2024 is situated 200 meters east of Chembur bridge and south of Venjaramood junction-Attingal main road. The 01 Hec 16 Are 40 Sq.m. land in Resurvey No. 391/1 in Block No:26 where the plant is situated belongs to late. Kuttanpilla Muralidharan Nair, Padmavilasam in Mundakal. Muralidharan Nair's wife and children through an agreement has permitted the owners of the plant to operate in the said land. But in view of the interim order of Honourable High Court in WP(C)No. 15965/2024 it is reported that the said WP(C) NO.34275 OF 2025 48 2026:KER:28842 plant has not been functioning for about two months. Prior to the judgment of this Honourable Court, during preliminary investigation by the Grama Panchayath it was learnt that there are about 20 houses within a radius of 50 meters of the said plant, the smoke emitted during the night when the plant operated was causing serious health problems including respiratory & skin diseases. Vide Letter No. J1-8992/2024 dated 23.08.2024 submitted by Tahsildar, Nedumangad, Tahsildar has reported that it would be appropriate to give permission for further operations of the plant only after carrying out a detailed study and necessary clearance from the Gram Panchayat, Pollution Control Board, Fire Force and other related technical departments. 3. As per report No. 400221/LLIP0S/ GPO/2024/4667/(1) submitted by Secretary, Nellanad Grama Panchayath, the said plant which was operating without license or permission of the Grama Panchayat has been shut down following the order of Honourable High Court of Kerala in Writ Petition No. 23320/2024 dated 09.08.2024. All the facts stated above are true to the best of knowledge, belief and information.”(Underline supplied) WP(C) NO.34275 OF 2025 49 2026:KER:28842 43. In the report, it is stated that during the preliminary investigation by the Grama Panchayat, it was learned that 20 houses are situated within a radius of 50 meters of the said plant and the smoke emitted during the night when the plant was operated was causing serious health problems, including respiratory and skin diseases. Even the Panchayat has no case that any houses are within a 50-meter radius of the plant, as per the Ext.P3 decision, which is the impugned order in this case. It would be better to extract the relevant portion of the Panchayat Secretary's report reproduced in Ext P3. " ……….സസ്ഥാപനതത്തിന് ഏകദദേശശം 150 മമീറ്ററത്തിനന പുറത്തു നത്തിരവധത്തി വമീടുകൾ ഉനണ്ടെനശം, സമമീപതസ്ഥായത്തി ഒരു ദതസ്ഥാടന് ഒഴുകുന്നതസ്ഥായശം പരത്തിസരവസ്ഥാസത്തികളുനട ശക്തമസ്ഥായ എതത്തിർപ്പു ഈ കസ്ഥാരര്യതത്തിൽ ഉനണ്ടെനശം, 16.6.2022 ലശം 24.1.2023 ലശം പഞസ്ഥായതന് ദസസ്ഥാപന് നമദമസ്ഥാ നൽകത്തിയതസ്ഥായസ്ഥാണന് പഞസ്ഥായതന് ദരഖകൾ കസ്ഥാണത്തിക്കുന്നനതനശം നസക്രട്ടറത്തി കമത്തിറ്റത്തി മുൻപസ്ഥാനക അറത്തിയത്തിച. " 44. The above statement regarding the residential houses situated only beyond 150 meters from the unit of the WP(C) NO.34275 OF 2025 50 2026:KER:28842 petitioners is specifically stated in paragraph 16 of the counter affidavit filed in this case by the panchayat. Moreover, the petitioners produced Ext.P32, the report of the District Medical Officer, along with I. A No.3 of 2026. It will be better to extract the contents of Ext.P32: "ജത്തില്ലയത്തിൽ നനല്ലനസ്ഥാടന് ഗസ്ഥാമപഞസ്ഥായതത്തിൽ വലത്തിയ കട്ടയസ്ഥാൽ വസ്ഥാർഡത്തിനല മമലക്കുഴത്തി എന്ന സലതന് ആരശംഭത്തിചത്തിട്ടുള്ള എൻ & ടത്തി ദഹസ്ഥാട്ടന് മത്തികന് പസ്ഥാൻന്റത്തിനനതത്തിനര നപസ്ഥാതുജനപരസ്ഥാതത്തി ഉണ്ടെസ്ഥായതത്തിനന തുടർന്ന് വസ്ഥാമനപുരശം ദബസ്ഥാകന് പസ്ഥാഥമത്തികസ്ഥാദരസ്ഥാഗര്യ ദകന്ദ്രതനന ദനതൃതത്ത്വതത്തിൽ നടതത്തിയ സർദവ്വേ റത്തിദപസ്ഥാർട്ടത്തിനന അടത്തിസസ്ഥാനതത്തിലശം, പസ്ഥാന് നത്തിലനത്തിൽക്കുന്ന വസ്തുവത്തിൻ ദമലള്ള തർകനതതുടർനശം നനല്ലനസ്ഥാടന് ഗസ്ഥാമപഞസ്ഥായതന് പസ്തുത പസ്ഥാനത്തിനന പവർതനസ്ഥാനുമതത്തി നത്തിർതത്തിവചത്തിട്ടുള്ളതസ്ഥാണന്. സൂചന(1) പകസ്ഥാരശം 03.09.2024 നുശം 20.12.2024 നുശം ശമീ. തസ്ഥാജുദമീൻ & ശമീ.സുധമീർ.എസന് ഈ കസ്ഥാരര്യസ്ഥാലയതത്തിൽ സമർപത്തിചത്തിരുന്ന അദപക്ഷകളത്തിൻദമൽ 09.10.2024 തമീയതത്തിയത്തിൽ ആദരസ്ഥാഗര്യ വകുപത്തിൽ നത്തിനശം ഉദദേര്യസ്ഥാഗസർ പസ്തുത പസ്ഥാനത്തിൽ പരത്തിദശസ്ഥാധന നടത്തുകയണ്ടെസ്ഥായത്തി. പസ്ഥാന് ഏകദദേശശം 8.30 ഏകർ ചുറ്റളവത്തിലള്ള സലതസ്ഥാണന് പവർതത്തിക്കുന്നനതനശം ഇതന് ജനവസ്ഥാസ ദമഖലയത്തിൽ നത്തിനശം ഉള്ളത്തിലസ്ഥാനണനശം, 150 മമീറ്റർ ചുറ്റളവത്തിൽ വമീടുകൾ ഇല്ലസ്ഥാനയനശം മുദേസ്ഥാകൽ, മസ്ഥാണത്തികൽ WP(C) NO.34275 OF 2025 51 2026:KER:28842 ഗസ്ഥാമപഞസ്ഥായത്തുകളുനട അതത്തിർതത്തികളത്തിൽ നത്തിനശം 500 മമീറ്ററത്തിൽ കൂടുതൽ ദൂരതത്തിലസ്ഥാനണനശം ദബസ്ഥാദര്യനപട്ടത്തിട്ടുണ്ടെന്. പസ്ഥാൻന്റന് ആധുനത്തിക സസ്ഥാദങ്കേദേത്തിക വത്തിദേര്യയത്തിൽ നത്തിർമത്തിചത്തിട്ടുള്ളതുശം, പസ്ഥാനത്തിൽ നത്തിനള്ള മലത്തിനമീകരണ സസ്ഥാധര്യത വളനര കുറവസ്ഥായത്തിട്ടുള്ളതുശം, മലത്തിനമീകരണ നത്തിയന്ത്രണ ദബസ്ഥാർഡത്തിനന നത്തിർദദശ പകസ്ഥാരമുള്ള എല്ലസ്ഥാ മസ്ഥാനദേണ്ഡങ്ങളുശം പസ്ഥാലത്തിചത്തിട്ടുള്ളതസ്ഥായശം കസ്ഥാണുന. പസ്ഥാൻന്റത്തിൽ നത്തിനശം ജലമലത്തിനമീകരണതത്തിനുള്ള സസ്ഥാധര്യത ദബസ്ഥാധര്യനപട്ടത്തിട്ടത്തില്ല. പസ്ഥാനത്തിൽ നത്തിനശം പുറശംതള്ളുന്ന ദക്ലേയത്തിൽ നത്തിനശം മലത്തിനമീകരണ സസ്ഥാധര്യത കസ്ഥാണുന്നത്തില്ല. കൂടസ്ഥാനത ദക്ലേ മടൽ കമത്തിനത്തികന് പുനരുപദയസ്ഥാഗതത്തിനസ്ഥായത്തി നൽകുന്നതസ്ഥായശം മനസത്തിലസ്ഥാക്കുന. നപസ്ഥാടത്തി നത്തിയന്ത്രണതത്തിനസ്ഥായത്തി വസ്ഥാട്ടർ സന്പത്തിശംഗളർ ഏർപടുതത്തിയത്തിട്ടുള്ളതസ്ഥായശം ദബസ്ഥാദര്യനപട്ടു. ജമീവനകസ്ഥാർക്കുള്ള സുരക്ഷ സശംവത്തിധസ്ഥാനങ്ങളുശം സസ്ഥാപത്തിചത്തിട്ടുണ്ടെന്. പസ്ഥാനത്തിൽ സസ്ഥാപത്തിചത്തിട്ടുള്ള ചത്തിമത്തിനത്തികന് 21.05 മമീറ്റർ ഉയരമുണ്ടെന്. മസദക്ലേസ്ഥാൺ നസപദററ്റർ, സ്കൂബർ, ബസ്ഥാഗന്ഗത്തിൽറ്റർ എന്നത്തിവയശം മതത്തിയസ്ഥായ അളവത്തിൽ പസ്ഥാൻന്റത്തിദനസ്ഥാടന് ദചർതന് സസ്ഥാപത്തിചത്തിട്ടുണ്ടെന്. 15.01.2025 ന് രസ്ഥാവത്തിനല 11.00 മണത്തികന് മലത്തിനമീകരണ നത്തിയന്ത്രണ ദബസ്ഥാർഡന് എഞത്തിനമീയർ അടങ്ങുന്ന ടമീശം, ഈ കസ്ഥാരര്യസ്ഥാലയതത്തിനല ജൂനത്തിയർ അഡത്തിനത്തിദസ്ട്രേറ്റമീവന് നമഡത്തികൽ ഓഗമീസർ നടകത്തികൽ അസത്തിസൻന്റന് എന്നത്തിവർ സശംയക്ത പരത്തിദശസ്ഥാധന നടത്തുകയശം പസ്ഥാൻന്റത്തിദനസ്ഥാടന് ഏറ്റവശം അടുതന് സത്തിതത്തി നചയ്യുന്ന വമീടത്തിന് ദചർന്ന് വരുന്ന സലതന് Air Quality Monitoring and Noise level Monitoring machine സസ്ഥാപത്തിക്കുകയശം 11.15 AM മുതൽ 1.15 PM വനര പസ്ഥാന് പൂർണ്ണമസ്ഥായശം പവർതനമസ്ഥാകത്തിനകസ്ഥാണ്ടെന് നത്തിരമീക്ഷണശം നടത്തുകയശം നചയ. പസ്ഥാന് പവർതത്തിക്കുദമസ്ഥാൾ പുറതള്ളുന്ന WP(C) NO.34275 OF 2025 52 2026:KER:28842 പുകയനട മസ്ഥാലത്തിനര്യങ്ങൾ അനുവദേനമീയമസ്ഥായ അളവത്തിനുശം തസ്ഥാനഴയസ്ഥാണന്. പ്രശ്നങൾ ഉണകാകുന്നതക്കിനുള്ള സകാഹചരഗ്യരം നപകാതുജനകാമരകാഗഗ്യ നക്കിലവക്കിൽ ഇല്ലകാനയന്നട് ആമരകാഗഗ്യ വ കുപക്കിൽ നക്കിന്നുള്ള പരക്കിമശകാധനകളക്കിൽ മബകാധഗ്യനപട്ടതക്കിനകാലരം, മകരള സമേസ്ഥകാന മേലക്കിനശകരണ നക്കിയന്ത്രണ മബകാർഡക്കിൽ നക്കിന്നുരം അനുകൂലമേകായ റക്കിമപകാർട്ട് നൽകക്കിയക്കിട്ടുള്ള സകാഹചരഗ്യതക്കിലരം നക്കിലവക്കിൽ എൻ & ടക്കി മഹകാട്ട്മേക്കികട് പകാനട് പ്രവർതനവുമേകായക്കി ബന്ധനപട്ട വക്കിഷയതക്കിൽ എനന്തെങക്കിലരം മകകാടതക്കി വഗ്യവഹകാരങൾ നക്കിലനക്കിൽക്കുന്നുനവങക്കിൽ ആയതട് കൂടക്കി പരക്കിഗണക്കിച്ചുനകകാണട് മമേൽ പകാനട്റട് പ്രവർതനരം നടത്തുന്നതക്കിനട് പ്രവർതനകാനുമേതക്കി നൽകകാവുന്ന തകാനണന്നട് ഇതക്കിനകാൽ അറക്കിയക്കിക്കുന്നു." 45. Ext.P32 is dated 06.02.2025 and Ext.R10(d) is dated 04.09.2024. Therefore, this Court has to rely on the subsequent report of the District Medical Officer dated 06.02.2025, which is produced as Ext.P32. Hence, the third ground raised by the party respondents based on Ext R10(d) is to be rejected. 46. The fourth ground raised by the counsel for the party WP(C) NO.34275 OF 2025 53 2026:KER:28842 respondents is that hot mix plants cause serious harm to the nearby inhabitants. The answer to the above contention is set out in Ext.P32, as extracted above. In addition, all statutory authorities have granted clearance to the petitioners. The Pollution Control Board issued consent. When the statutory authorities gave no objection, this Court cannot accept the respondents' contention that the hot tar mix plants pose serious hazards to nearby inhabitants. th 47. The 5 contention raised by the counsel for the respondents based on the dictum laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in Kunhitharuvai Memorial Charitable Trust ’s case (supra) is already considered by this Court and there is no dispute on that and it is the discretion of the party respondents to decide in which forum a Review Petition is to be filed. th 48. The 6 point raised by the party respondents is that the issue regarding the power of the Panchayat to refuse WP(C) NO.34275 OF 2025 54 2026:KER:28842 permission for a license is pending consideration before the Full Bench of this Court. Admittedly, no interim order has been issued in those cases. Therefore, the same is not a reason to retain the Ext.P3 order passed by the Panchayat in the light of the Ext.P1 judgment. th 49. The 7 contention raised by the party respondents is that there is an alternative remedy available to the petitioners against Ext.P3, and the same is not considered. The petitioners also relied on the judgment of this Court in Suresh Kumar R. v. State of Kerala [2024 (6) KHC 443]. The contention based on an alternative remedy was raised in W.P.(C) No.21247 of 2025, which led to Ext.P1. This Court in paragraph No.14 of that judgment, which is extracted above, clearly stated that even if alternative remedies are available, this is a fit case in which the discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is to be invoked. It is a settled position that, when an alternative remedy is available, this Court need WP(C) NO.34275 OF 2025 55 2026:KER:28842 not entertain a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. But here is a case where an entrepreneur is behind the Panchayat for obtaining permission, and the Panchayat dismissed that application even though the Ext.P1 judgment is there and the amended Section 233 of the Act, 1994, is also there. If this Court does not interfere in this case, invoking the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, it will be an injustice to a genuine entrepreneur who has invested crores of rupees. 50. At this stage, the counsel for the party respondents submitted that, simply because crores of rupees are invested by the petitioners, the same is not a reason to interfere with Ext.P3 when there is an environmental hazard because of the unit. As I mentioned earlier, all statutory authorities have found that there is no environmental hazard. These are only apprehensions of the party respondents. 51. Counsel for the party respondents submitted that the WP(C) NO.34275 OF 2025 56 2026:KER:28842 party respondents also invested a huge amount to construct their houses, and they have to shift their residence from the place if the unit is started. As I mentioned earlier, the District Medical Officer reported that the residential houses are situated about 150 meters away from the plant. The District Medical Officer also submitted that there is no question of health hazards to the nearby residents. The PCB also granted consent, stating that there is no question of pollution. In such circumstances, the party respondents' apprehensions lack scientific support. 52. The other contention raised by the party respondents is that the contentions of the Panchayat in their counter affidavit remain uncontroverted and the petitioners have not rebutted the said contentions. It is submitted that the Panchayat has raised several contentions regarding illegal constructions within the unit of the petitioners, and that the petitioners' unit is located within a residential building where no WP(C) NO.34275 OF 2025 57 2026:KER:28842 commercial activity is permitted. It is also submitted that the Panchayat stated in its counter-affidavit that the petitioners commenced the operation of their hot tar mix plant without obtaining valid permissions or clearance from the Panchayat. Some of these contentions were already considered by this Court in the earlier paragraphs. As far as the alleged illegal constructions by the petitioners are concerned, the Panchayat issued Ext.P20 stop memo, which is challenged before the Tribunal, and the Tribunal has stayed it as per Ext.P21 order. Admittedly, the Ext.P21 order is still in force. Moreover, if there is any illegal construction, the remedy of the Panchayat is to proceed separately in accordance with the Act 1994, and that is not a reason to reject an application for permission. Moreover, that is not a reason to pass the Ext.P3 order as well. th th 53. A counter affidavit has been filed by the 4 and 5 respondents. Paragraph No.8 of the above counter affidavit is extracted hereunder: WP(C) NO.34275 OF 2025 58 2026:KER:28842 “8. It is submitted that the Panchayat thereafter found that the petitioners have not obtained any installation permit and license from the Panchayat and they have constructed several buildings without obtaining valid building permits from the Panchayat. The Panchayat also found that it has granted a building No 10/516 to the owner of property in respect of a “residential building”. The said building cannot be used for any commercial or industrial purpose as the hotmix plant will not come under the residential category. The Panchayat then issued a notice dated 24.01.2024 by way of Exhibit P20 informing the petitioners that petitioners cannot operate the hotmix plant in a residential building and such other buildings constructed without obtaining valid building permits from the Panchayat.” 54. The petitioners produced Ext.P33 occupancy certificate issued by the Panchayat dated 03.05.2025. In the light of Ext.P33 and also in the light of the discussion made by this Court in the earlier paragraphs, I am of the considered opinion that the contentions raised by the Panchayat will not stand. The counsel for the party respondents submitted that the petitioners’ unit is a moving unit and it can be shifted far away from the human settlements after obtaining proper and WP(C) NO.34275 OF 2025 59 2026:KER:28842 valid permissions. There is no such case for the petitioners that it is a moving unit. The party respondents are relying on certain averments in the Panchayat's counter-affidavit. Moreover, the petitioners' case is clear: they want to start the unit in a building. Therefore, that contention will not stand either. 55. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that the contentions raised by the Panchayat and the party respondents will not stand. As I mentioned earlier, this is a story of an entrepreneur who has invested crores of rupees and obtained all other statutory clearances, but has been begging before local authorities for years for permission under Section 233 of the Act 1994, who in effect are afraid of a protest by a handful of people, which lacks any basis in light of the District Medical Officer's report, which is extracted in paragraph 44 of this judgment. Simply because there is a hue and cry from a section of people without any basis, a local authority cannot deny the petitioners' valuable constitutional right as a citizen to WP(C) NO.34275 OF 2025 60 2026:KER:28842 establish a unit. 56. In the background of these pleadings, it becomes necessary to notice the peculiar predicament projected by the petitioners. The materials on record show that the petitioners have invested several crores of rupees in establishing an industrial unit in the State of Kerala after securing clearances, licenses, and permits mandated by applicable statutes, rules, and regulations, except the Panchayat's permission. It is not the case that any statutory authority has found that the unit violates environmental norms or any other statutory provisions, except for the apprehension of the party respondents that there may be health hazards if the plant is operational. Such apprehension has no backing in any substantial material. This was ruled out by the District Medical Officer in his report, which is extracted in paragraph 44 of this judgment. Moreover, the unit, though complete in all physical respects, has been unable to commence operations. What was envisaged as a lawful WP(C) NO.34275 OF 2025 61 2026:KER:28842 enterprise intended to generate employment and contribute to the local economy has, due to sustained public protest, been reduced to a silent complex of concrete, steel, and idle machinery. The more serious concern that emerges from the records is the erosion of faith in the efficacy of statutory approvals and in the protection promised by the rule of law. When permissions granted by competent authorities in strict conformity with the legal framework are rendered meaningless by extra-legal resistance, the credibility of that framework itself comes under strain. While public dissent is an acknowledged and protected facet of a democratic society, it cannot, in the absence of any proven illegality, be permitted to wholly thwart a venture that has complied with every statutory requirement. If such a situation is allowed to persist, it is not merely the petitioners who will suffer; our state economy will suffer as well. The wider message conveyed to law-abiding investors is that compliance may still not secure their operational WP(C) NO.34275 OF 2025 62 2026:KER:28842 endeavours. It is this larger constitutional concern and the petitioners’ plea for the protection of their legally sanctioned enterprise that now fall for consideration in this Writ Petition. I am of the considered opinion that the Panchayat has to issue permission strictly in accordance with Section 233 of the Act, 1994, in the light of the amended Act 14 of 2018, which is applicable here. The Panchayat cannot reject an application submitted under Section 233 of the Act 1994, in the light of Act 14 of 2018, because by Act 14 of 2018, the words “or refusing” have been consciously omitted by the legislature from the erstwhile sub-section (4) of Section 233 of the Act 1994. Thus, it is to be inferred and understood that an application filed under Section 233 of the Act, 1994, has to be either absolutely or conditionally allowed and cannot be rejected. Therefore, the Panchayat must allow the application and, if necessary, may also impose conditions while granting permission. It should be done forthwith to strengthen faith in the rule of law and to WP(C) NO.34275 OF 2025 63 2026:KER:28842 boost the morale of genuine entrepreneurs who want to invest in Kerala. Therefore, this Writ Petition is allowed in the following manner: 1. Ext.P3 order is set aside. 2. Respondents 4 and 5 are directed to allow Ext.P26 application, if necessary, after imposing appropriate conditions in tune with Section 233 of the Act, 1994. Necessary orders as directed above shall be passed within two weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. Sd/- P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE DM/AJ/nvj/SKS/SSG </div><table><thead><tr><th>Judgment reserved</th><th>24.03.2026</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Date of judgment</td><td>01.04.2026</td></tr><tr><td>Judgment dictated</td><td>25.03.2026</td></tr><tr><td>Draft Judgment Placed</td><td>28.03.2026</td></tr><tr><td>Final Judgment pronounced and uploaded</td><td>01.04.2026</td></tr></tbody></table><div> WP(C) NO.34275 OF 2025 64 2026:KER:28842 APPENDIX OF WP(C) NO. 34275 OF 2025 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit-P1 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C).21247/2025 DATED 10.07.2025. Exhibit-P2 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WA.2093/2025 DATED 27.08.2025. Exhibit-P3 TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION OF THE PANCHAYATH COMMITTEE DATED 27.08.2025. Exhibit-P4 TRUE COPY OF THE INTIMATION DATED 08.09.2025 OF THE SECRETARY INTIMATING EXT.P3 DECISION TO THE PETITIONERS. Exhibit-P5 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 09.02.2017 TO THE DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER. Exhibit-P6 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 09.02.2017 TO THE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD. Exhibit-P7 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 17.04.2017 OF THE DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER. Exhibit-P8 TRUE COPY OF THE CONSENT TO OPERATE ISSUED BY KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD HAD ISSUED CONSENT TO OPERATE DATED 04.05.2017. Exhibit-P9 TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION DATED 10.05.2017 OF THE PANCHAYATH COMMITTEE. Exhibit-P10 TRUE COPY OF THE INTIMATION ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY OF PANCHAYATH DATED 11.05.2017. Exhibit-P11 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS IN IA 858/2017 IN RP 55/2017 DATED 16.05.2017. Exhibit-P12 TRUE COPY OF THE STOP MEMO ISSUED BY THE PANCHAYATH ON 29.05.2017. Exhibit-P13 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C)NO. 20228/2017 DATED 28.06.2017. Exhibit-P14 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 24.01.2018 FOR PERMISSION UNDER SEC.233 OF PANCHAYATH RAJ ACT. Exhibit-P15 TRUE COPY OF THE D&O LICENSE APPLICATION DATED 24.01.2018. WP(C) NO.34275 OF 2025 65 2026:KER:28842 Exhibit-P16 TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF REGISTRATION ISSUED BY THE REGISTRAR OF FIRMS DATED 04.06.2022. Exhibit-P17 TRUE COPY OF THE INVOICE DATED 25.03.2022 ISSUED BY M/S AMMAN INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED CHENNAI. Exhibit-P18 TRUE COPY OF THE RENT AGREEMENT DATED 20.04.2022 ENTERED INTO BETWEEN VISHNU AND GEETHA RANI AND PETITIONERS. Exhibit-P19 TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT RECEIPT DATED 21.06.2022 ISSUED BY THE PANCHAYATH. Exhibit-P20 TRUE COPY OF THE STOP MEMO ISSUED BY THE PANCHAYAT DATED 24.01.2023. Exhibit-P21 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN IA.436/2023 IN APPEAL.NO.157/2023 DATED 18.03.2023. Exhibit-P22 TRUE COPY OF THE CONSENT TO OPERATE ISSUED BY THE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD DATED 13.03.2023. Exhibit-P23 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR LICENSE DATED 21.06.2024 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER. Exhibit-P24 TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT CERTIFICATE DATED 25.06.2024 ISSUED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE. Exhibit-P25 TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION REPORTED IN 2024 KHC ONLINE 1325 (THAJUDHIN A V. STATE POLICE CHIEF). Exhibit-P26 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONERS, DATED NIL. Exhibit-P27 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT OF APPLICATION DATED 17.05.2025. Exhibit-P28 TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION DATED 22.05.2025 OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT PANCHAYATH. Exhibit-P29 TRUE COPY OF THE INTIMATION ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY OF THE PANCHAYATH 30.05.2025. Exhibit-P30 TRUE COPY OF THE SANITARY CERTIFICATE DATED 23.06.2025 ISSUED BY THE HEALTH INSPECTOR VAMANAPURAM HEALTH CENTRE. Exhibit-P31 TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING TAX RECEIPT WP(C) NO.34275 OF 2025 66 2026:KER:28842 DATED 06.05.2025 FOR BUILDING NO.10/516A. RESPONDENT EXHIBITS Exhibit R 4 [ a ] A true copy of the complaint dated 6..3..2017 Exhibit R 4 [ b ] A true copy of the stop notice dated 3..4..3017 issued to Sudheer Exhibit R 4 [ c ] A true copy of the Appeal filed before the Nellanad Grama Panchayat committee dated 10..5..2017 Exhibit R 4 [ d ] A true copy of the photograph showing the present status of the hotmix plaint Exhibit R10(b) True copy of the Order No. C2-1448/2024- GME issued by the District Medical Officer dated 24.05.2024. Exhibit R10(c) True copy of the Letter issued by the Health Inspector Family Health Centre, Vamanapuram to the 4 th respondent dated 27.06.2024. Exhibit R10(a) True copy of the judgment dated 09.08.2024 in WPC No.23320/2024 reported as Thajudheen Vs State Police Chief (2024 KHC Online 1325). Exhibit R10(d) TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO FILED BY THE SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER IN WRIT APPEAL NO.1244/2024 DATED 05.09.2024. PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit - P32 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER OF THE DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER THIRUVANANTHAPURAM TO THE SECRETARY, NALLANAD GRAMAPANCHAYATH DATED 06.02.2025 Exhibit - P33 TRUE COPY OF CERTIFICATE DATED 03.05.2025 ISSUED BY THE NALLANAD GRAMAPANCHAYATH SECRETARY DATED 03.05.2025 ALONG WITH TYPED COPY</div>