Panchayat:Repo18/Law Manual Page0315
Hence, if an entrepreneur produces sufficient positive certification from the competent authorities, then the Panchayat/President is liable to act on the same and issue the permission/licence unless bound by valid policy reasons. - Action Council v. Benny Abraham - 2001 (2) KLT 690 : 2001 (2) KLJ 120. [1996 (2) KLT 719 - Clarified. AIR 1952 SC 17 - Referred to.] [Reversed in 2002 (2) KLT 228 SC).
- Application for license to put up a building to start a S.S.I. unit - No reference to Town Planning Dept. is required - Certified by the Green Channel Committee as a non-polluting unit - No notification under S: 232 issued by the Panchayat - Application to be accepted or rejected within the deadline fixed under S. 233(3) of the Act.- N.S.S. Karayogam, Mevelloor v. Velloor Grama Panchayat - 2001 (3) KLT SN 58 P. 43
- Prosecution for failure to take a licence – Court where prosecution is launched if competent to sit in judgment over validity of bye-laws prescribing the licence and fee - Question of quid pro quo if can be agitated - Panchayat if to prove that special services are rendered to licences - The Court where the prosecution is launched is not called upon to sit in judgement over the validity of the bye-laws prescribing the licence and the fee for the same. If the accused had any idea to question the imposition of licence fee, or the notification insisting on his taking a licence for conducting the tile factory in the area specified therein, he ought to have challenged the bye-laws made by the Panchayat in accordance with the provisions of the Act before the authorities constituted for the said purpose. The question of quid pro quo is not a matter to be agitated before the court where the owner of the tile factory is prosecuted for his failure to take the licence. For sustaining the imposition of licence fee it is net n to prove that special services are rendered to the licensees. If the licences are getting the general services from the Panchayat, which fact is not disputed, then the imposition of the fee has to be sustained. - Kodakara Panchayat v. Sukumaran - 1986 KLT 618 : 1986 KLJ 458.
- Ss.96 & 110 [corresponding to S.232 & S.237 of the Panchayat Raj Act, 1994]– Ration shops er Kerala Rationing Order, 1966 - Not exempted from taking licence under S.110 – The building is under the control of the ration shop dealer and is in no way under the occupation or control of the State Government. The fact that the officials of the State Government have got authority to come and inspect the ration shop does not in any way mean that they have got control over the place of business. Therefore, the ration shops, where the respondents are doing their business are not exempted under S.110 of the Act. - Executive Officer, Atholi Panchayat v. Sreedharan - 1987 (2) KLT 698 : 1987 (2) KLJ 1416.
- Application for licence in respect of a dangerous and offensive trade - Rules not speaking of prohibitory distance - Prescribed form requiring specification of distance - Not to be deemed as prohibitory rule based on distance - Constitution of India, Art.226 - It is true that the Kerala Panchayats (Licensing of Dangerous and Offensive Trades and Factories) Rules, 1963, do not prescribe that a dangerous and offensive trade should be conducted only beyond a particular distance from any residential building. The application form prescribed is part of the rules. The particulars to be furnished are thus on the basis of those rules. The rules enjoin that the licensing authority has to take into consideration several factors and then decide whether the license should be granted or not. The facts furnished in the application have necessarily to guide the authority in the exercise of its discretion, These particulars can have no greater sanctity. It cannot be said that any matter for which a separate column is provided in the application automatically enshrines a statutory prohibition. The particulars directed to be furnished by the applicant thus cannot be deemed to be any prohibitory rule based on distance. When the rules speak of no prohibitory distance, a prohibition cannot be implied from the contents of the application or the particulars to be furnished therein. It follows that when there is no express rule prohibiting the installation of a stone crushing unit within a particular distance of a residential building, the Government was wrong in stating that a distance rule prevented the grant of a licence. The nuisance caused by the working of a 30 H.P. Engine to crush stones is a legal injury to the neighboring residents. If the Government feel that the residents in the neighborhood within 225 feet or 100 meters have to be protected, this court will not exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution without being unmindful of the injustice that is likely to be caused. – Ibrahimkutty v. State of Kerala - 1986 KLT 830: 1986 KLJ 680.
- Object of – Issue of license for installation of factory - Requirements - Government order relaxing the provision contrary to it – is illegal - It is clear from the statutory provisions contained in Rule 12(4) (b) and (c) of the Rules that they are intended to ensure the health of the citizens in the locality as also their safety having regard to possible fire hazards. There is no provision entitling the Government to relax these provisions. That being the position the State ought to take every possible step to ensure that the statutory provisions bearing on the subject intended for ensuring safety of the citizens are strictly obeyed and complied with. - Aboobacker v. State of Kerala - 1988 (1) KLT 232: AIR 1988 Ker 242: ILR 1988 (2) Ker 59.