Panchayat:Repo18/Law Manual Page0311

THE KERALA PANCHAYAT RAJ ACT, 1994'

311 Panchayat can levy penalty/fine for violation of Rules and hence, Tribunal's finding is incorrect. It was also held that the Tribunal may admit a petition submitted within one month after prescribed time limit, if Tribunal is satisfied that there is sufficient reason for not submitting petition within time. Though Rule does not provide for filing of a separate petition for condonation of delay, it is always advisable to file a petition to condone delay so that Tribunal can satisfy itself that there was sufficient reason for not submitting petition within time. Revision filed without an application for condonation of delay, was defective and R. 11 would squarely be applicable to such a situation. Hence. Tribunal was not proper i dismissing the revision. Revision petition ought to have been returned giving petitioner an opportunity to re present the same along with an application to condone the delay. – Mallappally Grama Panchavath. Pathanamthitta v. Zeenath Beevi and Another - 2014 (3) KHC 32 : 2014 (3) KLT 161.

In Unnikrishnan A. G. V. Commissioner of Excise, Tvm and Another the question of shifting of toddy shop and effect of Ordinance 62 of 2012 was considered. The Court held that if the toddy shop is in existence as on 25/11/2012, Panchayat cannot insist on obtaining a licence under the D&O Rules, 1996, upon shifting of the toddy shop. Notification issued under 1960 Act is superseded when D&O Rules, 1996 were notified. – Unnikrishnan A. G. v. Commissioner of Excise, Tvm and Another - 2014 (1) KHC 140: 2014 (1) KLJ 747.
Village Panchayat cannot pass a resolution and take a blanket decision that it would not grant any fresh licence for conducting quarries on account of objection by people in the locality. Hence, an application seeking to establish a factory, workplace or other establishments, cannot be summarily rejected. Enquiry contemplated under S.233 is mandatory. For establishing quarry in which mechanical power or electrical power is used, it requires permission from Village Panchayat. Authority of Secretary is only to obtain reports from Inspector of factories, District Medical Officer, Divisional Fire Officer and place it before Village Panchayat. In an instance coming under R. 12(3)(d), Secretary can issue license in respect of factories or industrial establishments with machinery capacity having less than 5 HP, if he is of opinion that the factory or industrial establishment does not cause pollution. When S.232 of the Act gives power on the Secretary of Panchayat to issue licence to establish Rules have to be read as if the power is vested with the Secretary. The Village Panchayat or the President has no Authority in such a case. When an application is filed under S.232 of the Act, Secretary will be the only authority to decide whether the license could be granted or not - Notwithstanding the same, Village Panchayat has powers to grant or refuse permission under S.233 of the Act. If an application is submitted under S.232 of the Act read with D&O Rules, and a permission under S.233 is not required, Secretary is

der application and pass appropriate orders. In matters coming under R.12(3)(d) of the D&O Rules also power is conferred on the Secretary. However when a composite application is submitted by a person under S.232 and 233, a decision to grant a licence or permission under S.233 is to be taken by the Village Panchayat. President is given the power to take any action in case of violation of the conditions of licence. - Kadaplamattom Grama Panchayat, Kottayam and Another v. Johny Roy - 2013 (3) KHC 857 : 2013 (3) KLT 1053 : ILR 2013 (4) Ker. 367.

Government have framed the Kerala Panchayat Raj (Licensing of Dangerous Trade) Rules, 1996. As per Section 232, it is for the local body to notify that a particular activity is offensive or dangerous to human health or property and in such a case, without licence from the Executive Authority, no person can use any area for such purposes as are notified, without licence. This Court has taken the view that the word "offensive or dangerous to human life or health or property" are not to be construed in their ordinary sense and it need be only activities which are so considered by the Authority (See - Shaji v. State of Kerala). It is true that a mobile tower is not notified under Section 232 as such. But, we should have regard to the words used in Section 233 wherein the only indispensable requirements are the construction or establishment of any factory, workshop or workplace in which, no doubt, it must be proposed to employ steam power, water power or other mechanical power or electrical power. Nothing prevented the Legislature also indicating in Section 233 that it must be a factory, workshop or workplace to which Section 232 is applicable. The conspicuous omission to refer to the same and the width of the language employed in Section 233 leads us to hold that any factory, workshop or workplace, be it included in Section 232 or not, in which it is proposed to employ the steam power, water power, mechanical power or electrical power will attract Section 233 and permission must be sought and granted before construction or establishment - (Para 41) – Essar Telecom Infrastructure (P) Ltd. (M/s.) v. State of Kerala - 2011 (2) KHC 171 (DB): 2011 (2) KLT 516 : 2011 (2) KLJ 335.
In the conspectus of all the decisions, the concepts and the definitions which we have referred to, we are of the view that a mobile tower would not be a "workplace" within the meaning of Section 233 of the Panchayat Raj Act or Section 448 of the Municipalities Act. As already noted, both enactments are of the year 1994 and they are patterned on the provisions of Section 97 of the Kerala Panchayat Act, 1960 and the corresponding provisions of the Municipalities Act, 1960. The word "Workshop" is found in the