Government Can Resume Leased Land For Public Purpose; 'Substantial Compliance' Of 60-Day Notice Sufficient: Kerala High Court Revenue Can't Cite Pending Litigation to Justify One Year of Adjudication Inaction: Karnataka High Court Limitation | 1,142 Days of Silence: Orissa High Court Rejects Litigant's Claim That His Lawyer Never Called SC/ST Act's Bar on Anticipatory Bail Does Not Apply When Complaint Fails to Make Out Prima Facie Case: Karnataka High Court Oral Agreement for Sale Cannot Be Dismissed for Want of Stamp or Registration: Calcutta High Court Upholds Injunction Finance Company's Own Legal Manager Cannot Appoint Arbitrator — Award Passed by Such Arbitrator Is Non-Est and Inexecutable: Andhra Pradesh High Court District Court Cannot Remand Charity Commissioner's Order: Bombay High Court Division Bench Settles Conflicting Views Framing "Points For Determination" Not Always Mandatory For First Appellate Courts: Allahabad High Court Delhi HC Finds Rape Conviction Cannot Stand On Testimony Where Victim Showed 'Unnatural Concern' For Her Alleged Attacker Limitation in Partition Suit Cannot Be Decided Without Evidence: Karnataka High Court Cheque Dishonour Accused Can Probabilise Defence Without Entering Witness Box — Through Cross-Examination And Marked Documents Alone: Madras High Court Contributory Negligence | No Driving Licence and Three on a Motorcycle Cannot Mean the Victim Caused the Accident: Rajasthan High Court LL.B Degree Cannot Be Ground to Deny Maintenance to Divorced Wife: Gujarat High Court Dried Leaves and Branches Are Not 'Ganja': Delhi High Court Grants Bail Under NDPS Act Family Court Judge Secretly Compared Handwriting Without Telling Wife, Then Punished Her Hesitation: Delhi High Court Quashes Divorce Decree Co-Owner Can Sell Undivided Share in Joint Property Without Consent of Other Co-owners — Sale Deed Valid to Extent of Transferor's Share: Orissa High Court Mandatory Safeguards of Section 42 NDPS Cannot Be Bypassed — Even When 1329 Kg of Hashish Is Seized: Gujarat High Court Affirms Acquittal

Kerala HC Erred In Not Considering MSME Act’s Overriding Effect On Panchayat Raj Act: SC

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a recent judgment, the Supreme Court of India has held that the Kerala High Court erred in not considering the overriding effect of the Micro Small and Medium Enterprises Facilitation Act, 2019 on the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994. The apex court allowed the appeal filed by George Elias and Associates challenging the common order passed by the Division Bench of the Kerala High Court in three intra-court appeals.

The case pertains to the establishment of a Hot Mix Plant by the appellants for carrying out road works in Cherthala Aroorkutty in the state of Kerala. The appellants had obtained an Acknowledgment Certificate under Section 5(3) of the Kerala MSME Act and consent to establish from the Kerala State Pollution Control Board. The Kalloorkad Panchayat had refused to grant a license for the establishment of the Hot Mix Plant. The appellants had filed two writ petitions before the High Court of Kerala, which disposed of the petitions by permitting the appellants to prefer an application for permission under Rule 68 of the Kerala Panchayat Building Rules, 2019.

The learned Judge of the High Court held that the Secretary of the Panchayat cannot refuse permission under Rule 68 of the Rules, 2019, as the appellants had obtained consent from the State Pollution Control Board. However, the Division Bench of the Kerala High Court dismissed the appeals filed by the appellants.

Allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court observed that the most vital aspect of the case was overlooked by the High Court of Kerala. It held that the provisions of the Kerala MSME Act have an overriding effect on the provisions of the Act of 1994, and the Rules of 2019. The Court also held that the appellants’ Acknowledgment Certificate obtained under the Kerala MSME Act was sufficient to establish the Hot Mix Plant, and no permission from the Panchayat was required.

The Court further observed that the objectors’ argument that the Panchayat has the right of participation in decision making is misconceived. It held that if the Panchayat does not want road construction materials to be manufactured within its jurisdiction, it cannot import them from elsewhere. The Court dismissed the appeals filed by the objectors, and the writ petitions filed by the appellants were allowed.

JOLLY GEORGE & ANR.  VS GEORGE ELIAS AND ASSOCIATES & ORS.

[gview file="https://lawyer-e-news.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/12-Apr-2023-JOLLY-GEORGE-VS-GEORGE-ELIAS.pdf"]

Latest Legal News