Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Disposition
Attorney(S)
Judges
Acts
  • Act referred to in subsection (2) of Section 10,
  • Act, 2013 (18 of 2013) 5. Travancore - Cochin Public Health Act, 1955 (XVI of 1955) 6. Madras Public Health Act, 1939 (3 of 1939) 11. Savings.Subject to the provisions of section 10,
  • Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 (28 of 2008)
  • Section 233A of the Panchayat Raj Act,
  • Act. Section 233A of the Panchayat Raj Act
  • Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (13 of 1994)
  • provisions contained in sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 233A of the the Panchayat Raj Act,
  • Kerala Municipality Act, 1994 (20 of 1994) 3. The Kerala Shops and Commercial Establishments Act, 1960 (34 of 1960)
  • provisions of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (the Panchatyat Raj Act). Ext.P8
  • sub-section (1) of Section 233A of the Panchayat Raj Act
  • sub-section (1); (3)
  • Section 233A of the Panchayat Raj Act. Ext.P10
  • Medium Enterprises Facilitation Act, 2019 (the Act)
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Disposition
Attorney(S)
Judges
Acts
  • Act referred to in subsection (2) of Section 10,
  • Act, 2013 (18 of 2013) 5. Travancore - Cochin Public Health Act, 1955 (XVI of 1955) 6. Madras Public Health Act, 1939 (3 of 1939) 11. Savings.Subject to the provisions of section 10,
  • Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 (28 of 2008)
  • Section 233A of the Panchayat Raj Act,
  • Act. Section 233A of the Panchayat Raj Act
  • Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (13 of 1994)
  • provisions contained in sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 233A of the the Panchayat Raj Act,
  • Kerala Municipality Act, 1994 (20 of 1994) 3. The Kerala Shops and Commercial Establishments Act, 1960 (34 of 1960)
  • provisions of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (the Panchatyat Raj Act). Ext.P8
  • sub-section (1) of Section 233A of the Panchayat Raj Act
  • sub-section (1); (3)
  • Section 233A of the Panchayat Raj Act. Ext.P10
  • Medium Enterprises Facilitation Act, 2019 (the Act)
Smart Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

The petitioner obtained an Acknowledgment Certificate (Ext.P7) under the Kerala Micro Small and Medium Enterprises Facilitation Act, 2019 ("the Act") on 15.07.2020, valid until 14.07.2023, and established an industrial enterprise for manufacture of polypropylene lumps on the strength of that certificate. While the industry was operating, the Secretary of the fourth respondent Panchayat issued a stop memo (Ext.P8) alleging the industry was illegal for lack of a licence under the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994. The petitioner challenged Ext.P8 by filing W.P.(C) No. 18205 of 2020. At admission on 16.09.2020, counsel for the Panchayat stated that Ext.P8 was proposed to be withdrawn and the petition was closed, permitting the petitioner to continue operations. Thereafter, the Secretary issued another stop memo (Ext.P10) alleging complaints of pollution and stating it was issued under Section 233A of the Panchayat Raj Act. Ext.P10 is the subject of the writ petition now before the court.

Legal Issues Presented

  1. Whether the Panchayat (specifically the Secretary) is precluded by the Kerala Micro Small and Medium Enterprises Facilitation Act, 2019 from invoking powers under Section 233A of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act over an enterprise covered by an Acknowledgment Certificate issued under the Act.
  2. Whether Ext.P10 (the stop memo issued by the Secretary under Section 233A) was issued lawfully in accordance with the procedural and substantive prerequisites of Section 233A of the Panchayat Raj Act.

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioner's Arguments

  • The petitioner contended that, under the Act, the Panchayat is precluded from invoking Section 233A over an enterprise covered by an Acknowledgment Certificate issued under the Act.
  • Alternatively, the petitioner argued that even if the Secretary could invoke Section 233A, Ext.P10 was illegal because it was issued otherwise than in accordance with the procedural requirements of Section 233A.

Panchayat's Arguments

  • The Panchayat's counsel argued that the provisions of the Act do not remove the Secretary's power under Section 233A of the Panchayat Raj Act.
  • The Panchayat contended that it is empowered to issue stop memos like Ext.P10 under Section 233A.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court analyzed the matter by reference to specific provisions of the Act and Section 233A of the Panchayat Raj Act as extracted in the opinion.

Interpretation of the Act (Sections relied on):

  • Section 2(c) (definition of "approval") and Section 6(1)–(2): An Acknowledgment Certificate issued under the Act "shall, for all purposes, have effect as if it is an approval" (licenses, permissions, clearances, etc.) for a period of three years. During that three-year period, no competent authority shall undertake inspection in connection with such approvals (Section 6(2)).
  • Section 10 (overriding effect): The Act provides that its provisions shall have overriding effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent in any other law for the time being in force, and it specifically lists the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act among the enactments subject to Section 10.
  • Section 11 (savings): Subject to Section 10, nothing in the Act shall be construed as exempting an enterprise from the application of provisions of any law or regulatory measures except to the extent expressly provided in the Act.

From these provisions, the court concluded that an Acknowledgment Certificate functions as an approval for three years and that Section 10 gives the Act an overriding effect over inconsistent provisions of other laws, including the Panchayat Raj Act. However, the court explicitly noted that Section 10's overriding effect applies only to matters where the Act contains provisions covering the subject matter. Because the Act does not contain any provision dealing with the abatement of nuisance caused by factories, workshops, etc., the overriding effect in Section 10 does not extend to displace Section 233A of the Panchayat Raj Act. Consequently, the petitioner's contention that Section 233A cannot be applied to an enterprise covered by an Acknowledgment Certificate was rejected.

Analysis of Section 233A (text and preconditions):

  • Section 233A(1) authorizes the Secretary to direct abatement where, in the Secretary's opinion, a factory/workshop/workplace/machinery causes nuisance (by certain specified causes).
  • Section 233A(2) permits the Secretary to obtain expert opinion from concerned departments regarding the determination of nuisance or its abatement, at the cost of the owner or person in charge, and such report is to be furnished "as soon as possible, but not later than fifteen days" of reporting of such nuisance.
  • Section 233A(3) authorizes prohibition of working where there has been a willful default in carrying out a direction under subsection (1) or where, in the existing circumstances, abatement of the nuisance is found impracticable; such prohibition is temporary and remains until the person concerned takes necessary steps to the Secretary's satisfaction.

The court emphasized that two distinct legal limits must be satisfied before a prohibitory order under Section 233A(3) can be validly issued:

  1. There must either be a willful default in complying with a direction given under subsection (1), or the abatement of nuisance must be found impracticable in the existing circumstances; and
  2. A subjective satisfaction of the Secretary that a nuisance exists (as specified in subsection (1)) is a mandatory prerequisite to exercise power under subsection (1), and subsection (2) (expert opinion) reinforces that prerequisite by providing a means to arrive at that conclusion on materials, including expert reports.

Applying these preconditions to Ext.P10, the court noted that Ext.P10 merely stated that complaints had been received alleging pollution and did not assert that there had been a willful default in complying with a prior direction nor that abatement was impracticable. Further, Ext.P10 did not indicate that the Secretary had reached the requisite subjective conclusion—that the factory/workshop/workplace/machinery caused the kind of nuisance described in subsection (1)—on the basis of materials or expert opinion obtained under subsection (2). Because Ext.P10 lacked the statutory prerequisites required by Section 233A, the court held that Ext.P10 was unsustainable in law.

Holding and Implications

Final Ruling: The writ petition is allowed and Ext.P10 stop memo is quashed.

Implications:

  • Direct effect on the parties: The quashing of Ext.P10 removes the immediate prohibition placed on the petitioner's industrial activity by that memo; the petitioner may continue operations without being restrained by Ext.P10.
  • Limits on the Panchayat's action: The court made clear that this judgment does not preclude the Secretary of the Panchayat from invoking the power under Section 233A of the Panchayat Raj Act in relation to the petitioner's industry, provided that the Secretary acts in accordance with the prerequisites and procedures set out in Section 233A (for example, arriving at the subjective satisfaction required by subsection (1), obtaining expert opinion where appropriate under subsection (2), and acting only in circumstances permitted by subsection (3)).
  • Precedential effect: The opinion does not state or claim the setting of any new broader precedent beyond the disposition in this case; the decision identifies and enforces the statutory procedural and substantive prerequisites in Section 233A but does not purport to alter statutory scope beyond the facts before the court.

    Lizy Aby v. State Of Kerala

    P.B. Suresh Kumar, J.:— Petitioner obtained Acknowledgment Certificate in terms of the Kerala Micro Small and Medium Enterprises Facilitation Act, 2019 (the Act) for establishing an industrial enterprise for manufacture of polypropylene lumps. Ext.P7 is the Acknowledgment Certificate obtained by the petitioner on 15.7.2020. Ext.P7 is valid till 14.07.2023. It is stated by the petitioner that she has established the industry on the strength of Ext.P7 Acknowledgment Certificate and while the industry was in operation, the Secretary of the fourth respondent Panchayat issued Ext.P8 stop memo alleging that the operation of the industry by the petitioner is illegal since she has not obtained licence in terms of the provisions of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (the Panchatyat Raj Act). Ext.P8 stop memo was challenged by the petitioner before this court in W.P.(C) No. 18205 of 2020 and on 16.09.2020, when the said writ petition came up for admission, the learned counsel for the Panchayat submitted that the Panchayat is proposing to withdraw Ext.P8 stop memo and that a communication to that effect would be issued to the petitioner forthwith. In the light of the submission made by the learned counsel for the Panchayat, the said writ petition was closed, permitting the petitioner to carry on her activity. Immediately thereupon, the Secretary of the Panchayat issued Ext.P10 stop memo to the petitioner alleging that complaints have been received concerning the pollution caused by the industry of the petitioner and therefore, she has to stop the activity undertaken by her. It is stated in Ext.P10 stop memo that the same is issued in terms of Section 233A of the Panchayat Raj Act. Ext.P10 stop memo is under challenge in the writ petition.

    2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned counsel for the Panchayat.

    3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that in the light of the provisions contained in the Act, the Panchayat is precluded from invoking the power under Section 233A of the Panchayat Raj Act over an enterprise covered by an Acknowledgment Certificate issued under the Act. It was also contended by the learned counsel that even if it is found that the Secretary of the Panchayat could invoke the power under Section 233A of the Panchayat Raj Act over such an enterprise, Ext.P10 stop memo is illegal in so far as the same was issued otherwise than in accordance with Section 233A of the Panchayat Raj Act.

    4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the Panchayat contended that the provisions of the Act do not take away the power of the Secretary of the Panchayat under Section 233A of the Panchayat Raj Act. It was also contended by the learned counsel that the Panchayat is empowered to issue stop memos in the nature of Ext.P10 under the said provision.

    5. In order to resolve the issues in dispute between the parties, it is necessary to refer to the relevant provisions of the Act. Sections 2(c), 2(d), 5, 6, 7, 10 and 11 are the provisions in the Act which are relevant. The said provisions are extracted hereunder:

    2. Definitions.—In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,—

    x x x x x x x x x

    (c) “approval” means licenses, permissions, approvals, clearances, registration, consents, no objection certificate and the like, required under any State law in connection with the establishment or operation of micro small and medium enterprise in the State;

    (d) “Competent Authority” means any department or agency of the Government, statutory body, Corporation owned by State, Local Self Government Institutions, Urban Development Authorities, or any other Authority or Agency constituted or established by or under any State law or under the administrative control of the Government, which is entrusted with the powers or responsibilities to grant or issue approval for establishment or operation of enterprises in the State;

    x x x x x x x x x

    5. Filing of Self Certification.—(1) Any person who intends to start an enterprise other than those not included as ‘Red Category’ by the Kerala State Pollution Control Board may, furnish before the nodal agency a Self Certification to start such an enterprise in such form and in such manner, as may be prescribed.

    (2) If any person has filed any application before the competent authority to obtain all or any of the approvals as defined in clause (c) of section 2, before the commencement of this Act, such person may also opt to furnish self certification of intend to start an enterprise under sub-section (1);

    (3) On receipt of a self certification completed in all respects, the nodal Agency shall, forthwith, issue an Acknowledgment Certificate, in the prescribed form, to the person who furnished the self certification under subsection (1).

    6. Effect of the Acknowledgement Certificate.—(1) An acknowledgment certificate issued under section 5 shall, for all purposes, have effect as if it is an approval as defined in clause (c) of section 2, for a period of three years from the date of its issuance and after the expiry of the said period of three years, such enterprise shall have to obtain required approvals as defined in clause (c) of section 2, within six months from the date of such expiry:

    Provided that the acknowledgement certificate shall not entitle a person to use a land contrary to the provisions contained in the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 (28 of 2008) and it shall also not entitle a person to use the land in deviation to the land use specified in the master plan notified under the Kerala Town and Country Planning Act, 2016 (9 of 2016), wherever such plan is in force.

    (2) During the period of three years specified in sub-section (1), no competent authority shall undertake any inspection for the purpose of, or in connection with, any approval as defined in clause (c) of section 2.

    7. Grant of Exemption.—Where the Government or any authority under it is empowered to exempt any enterprise from any approval or inspection or any provisions relating thereto under any Central Act, the Government or any such authority, as the case may be, shall, subject to the provisions of such Central Act, exercise such powers to grant such exemption to an enterprise established in the State for a period of three years from the date of issue of the acknowledgment certificate under section 5.

    x x x x x x x x x

    10. Overriding effect of this Act on other laws.—(1) The provisions of this Act shall have overriding effect, notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law, for the time being in force.

    (2) In particular and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing provisions of this Act, such provisions shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in the following enactments and the provisions of these enactments shall be read as amended in conformity with the provisions of this Act, namely:—

    1. The Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (13 of 1994)

    2. The Kerala Municipality Act, 1994 (20 of 1994)

    3. The Kerala Shops and Commercial Establishments Act, 1960 (34 of 1960)

    4. The Kerala Lift and Escalators Act, 2013 (18 of 2013)

    5. Travancore - Cochin Public Health Act, 1955 (XVI of 1955)

    6. Madras Public Health Act, 1939 (3 of 1939)

    11. Savings.—Subject to the provisions of section 10, nothing in this Act shall be construed as exempting any enterprise from the application of the provisions of any law for the time being in force, or any regulatory measures and standards prescribed thereunder, except to the extent expressly provided in this Act.

    6. A reading of Sections 2(c) and 6 extracted above would reveal that an Acknowledgment Certificate issued under the Act shall, for all purposes have the effect of the licences, permissions, approvals, clearances, registration, consents, no objection certificate and the like, required under any State law in connection with the establishment of an enterprise for a period of three years. In other words, a person obtaining an Acknowledgment Certificate under the Act for the purpose of establishing an enterprise need not obtain licences, permissions, approvals, clearances, registration, consents, no objection certificate and the like, required under any State law in connection with the establishment of the enterprise for a period of three years. Further, a reading of Section 10 of the Act would reveal that the provisions of the Act shall have overriding effect, notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force, in particular anything inconsistent therewith contained in any of the statutes specified in sub-section (2) therein. In other words, the Act will have overriding effect over the provisions in any other law for the time being in force including the Panchayat Raj Act referred to in subsection (2) of Section 10, which are inconsistent with the provisions of the Act. This aspect has been clarified in Section 11 of the Act also by providing that subject to the provisions of Section 10, nothing in the Act shall be construed as exempting any enterprise from the application of the provisions of any law for the time being in force, or any regulatory measures and standards prescribed thereunder, except to the extent expressly provided in the Act. Section 233A of the Panchayat Raj Act is a provision intended for abatement of nuisance caused by factory, workshop etc. In the absence of any provision in the Act dealing with abatement of nuisance caused by factory, workshop etc., the overriding effect provided for under Section 10 of the Act will not have any application over Section 233A of the Panchayat Raj Act.

    7. The contention raised by the petitioner as regards the application of Section 233A of the Panchayat Raj Act over the industry of the petitioner is therefore, liable to be rejected and I do so.

    8. I shall now consider the contention of the petitioner as regards the legality of Ext.P10 stop memo. Section 233A of the Panchayat Raj Act reads thus:

    “233A. Abatement of nuisance caused by factory, workshop etc.

    1. Where any factory, workshop, workplace or machinery causes, in the opinion of the Secretary nuisance by reason of a particular kind of fuel being employed or by reason or the noise or vibration created, or effluent discharged or by reason of noxious odour, smoke or dust omitted, the Secretary may direct the person in charge of such factory, workshop, workplace or machinery for the abatement of such nuisance within a reasonable time to be specified for that purpose.

    2. The Secretary may obtain expert opinion from the departments concerned, with regard to the determination of the nuisance or its abatement, at the cost of the owner or person in charge of the factory, workshop, workplace or machinery concerned and such report shall be furnished, as soon as possible, but not later than fifteen days of reporting of such nuisance.

    3. Where there has been wilful default in carrying out a direction given under subsection (1) or where in the existing circumstances the abatement of nuisance is found impracticable, the Secretary may prohibit the working of the factory, workshop, workplace or machinery till such time the person concerned takes necessary steps to the satisfaction of the Secretary for the abatement of the nuisance.”

    9. A reading of the provisions in Section 233A would indicate that an activity undertaken by a person in a factory, workshop or workplace could be prohibited by the Secretary of the Panchayat under sub-section (3) of Section 233A in two situations namely, where there has been willful default in carrying out a direction given under sub-section (1) or where in the existing circumstances, the abatement of nuisance is found impracticable. The provisions would also indicate that even under such situations, the Secretary of the Panchayat is empowered to prohibit the working of factory, workplace or workshop and machinery only till such time the person concerned takes necessary steps to the satisfaction of the Secretary of the Panchayat for the abatement of the nuisance. In Ext.P10 notice, the Secretary has no case that there has been willful default in carrying out a direction given under sub-section (1) of Section 233A of the Panchayat Raj Act or that the abatement of nuisance is found impracticable in the existing circumstances. On the other hand, the allegation in Ext.P8 notice is only that complaints have been received to the effect that the industry of the petitioner is causing pollution. The power of the Secretary of the Panchayat under sub-section (3) of Section 233A cannot be invoked on that ground. Going by the provisions contained in sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 233A of the the Panchayat Raj Act, the subjective satisfaction of the Secretary of the Panchayat that the factory, workshop, work place or machinery concerned causes nuisance by reason of a particular kind of fuel being employed or by reason of the noise or vibration created or effluent discharged or by reason of noxious odour, smoke or dust omitted, is a mandatory prerequisite to exercise his power under sub-section (1) to direct the person in charge of such factory, workshop or work place or machinery to abate the nuisance. Sub-section (2) of Section 233A which enables the Secretary of the Panchayat to obtain expert opinion from the departments concerned with regard to the determination of the nuisance or its abatement, at the cost of the owner or person in charge of the factory, workshop, work place or machinery, for arriving at the said subjective satisfaction, reinforces the said mandatory prerequisite. In other words, without arriving at a conclusion based on materials including expert opinion obtained in terms of sub section (2) of Section 233A of the Panchayat Raj to the effect that the factory, workshop, work place or machinery concerned causes nuisance by reason of a particular kind of fuel being employed or by reason of the noise or vibration created or effluent discharged or by reason of noxious odour, smoke or dust omitted, the Secretary cannot issue a prohibitory order under sub-section (3) of Section 233A. In the case on hand, Ext.P10 stop memo does not indicate that such a conclusion was arrived at by the Secretary of the Panchayat before issuing Ext.P10 stop memo. Ext.P10 stop memo is, therefore, unsustainable in law.

    10. In the result, the writ petition is allowed and Ext.P10 stop memo is quashed. It is however, made clear that this judgment will not preclude the Secretary of the Panchayat from invoking the power under Section 233A of the Panchayat Raj Act, over the industry of the petitioner, in accordance with the provisions therein.

    Use AI to get other relevant cases.

    Comments

    Lizy Aby v. State Of Kerala
    (Dec 14, 2020)