Not A Mere Breach Of Contract: Telangana High Court Refuses To Quash FIR In ₹73 Crore Garment Investment Fraud Accused Not Entitled To Copies Of 'Unrelied' Upon Documents At The Stage Of Framing Of Charges Under Section 91 CrPC: Supreme Court Elected Representatives Have No Privilege To Resort To Violence; Criminal Antecedents Are Material For Bail Adjudication: Supreme Court Mere Absence Of Transport Documents Does Not Create A Presumption Of Violation Of Chhattisgarh Agricultural Cattle Preservation Act, 2004: Supreme Court Section 396 IPC | Conviction For 'Dacoity With Murder' Requires Proof That Murder Was Committed In The Course Of Dacoity: Allahabad High Court 'Developers Cannot Delay Conveyance For Eternity And Milk Additional FSI Benefits': Bombay High Court Upholds Societies' Deemed Conveyance Pre-Approval Statutory Dues Stand Extinguished Upon Approval Of Resolution Plan; GST Authorities Cannot Initiate Fresh Proceedings: Calcutta High Court Unregistered Agreement To Sell With Delivery Of Possession Is Admissible In A Suit For Specific Performance: Delhi High Court Stigmatic Order Discharging Probationer Without Inquiry Is Void For Violation Of Natural Justice: Gujarat High Court Execution Proceedings | Court Cannot Impose Arbitrary Financial Conditions Without Reason In Stay Applications: Himachal Pradesh High Court Section 528 BNSS | High Court Cannot Exercise Inherent Powers To Circumvent Statutory Bar Against Second Revision: Delhi High Court Advocate Empanelment | Restriction On Multiple Applications Is A Procedural Choice Within Employer’s Domain: Delhi High Court Acquittal Appeal | Double Presumption Of Innocence In Favour Of Accused Cannot Be Disturbed Merely Because Another View Is Possible: Gujarat High Court SC/ST Act | Offence Under Section 3(1)(g) Not Attracted If Dispossession Or Interference Is Not Due To Victim's Caste: Himachal Pradesh High Court Judicial Officer Must Maintain Distance From Practicing Advocates To Avoid Impropriety: Gujarat High Court Upholds Dismissal Section 183 BNSS | Investigating Officer Cannot Independently Record Further Statement Of Victim After Recording Before Magistrate: Karnataka High Court Non-Production Of Case Property And Missing Link Evidence In Seizure Cases Vitiates Prosecution: Himachal Pradesh High Court Employees Compensation Act | Death Due To Cardiac Arrest During Employment Is An 'Accident' Arising Out Of Stress And Strain Of Duty: J&K High Court Transfer Of Proceedings | Courts Must Issue Fresh Notice To Parties Even If They Had Appeared Before The Transferor Court: Kerala High Court Sets Aside Ex-Parte Award Section 80P(4) IT Act Does Not Deny Deduction To Regional Rural Banks As They Retain The 'Deemed Co-operative Society' Status Under Section 22 RRB Act: Madras High Court Property Purchased In Name Of Child For Family Benefit Is Not A 'Benami Transaction' Under Section 2(9) Of The 1988 Act: Madhya Pradesh High Court Person Without Caveatable Interest Cannot Challenge Will Or Seek Revocation Of Probate: Madras High Court Divorce | Cruelty Must Be Assessed By Cumulative Effect Of Matrimonial Conduct Rather Than Isolated Incidents: Orissa High Court Merely Labeling Insurance Policy As Comprehensive Does Not Create Unlimited Liability: MP High Court Order VII Rule 11 CPC | Plaint Must Be Rejected If Limitation Bar Is Apparent From Face Of Pleadings: Patna High Court Limitation Act | 'Sufficient Cause' Cannot Be Used To Revive Stale Or Dead Claims By State: Orissa High Court Quashes Order Condoning 53-Year Delay Employee Cannot Remain Dormant Like Rip Van Winkle & Awaken At Convenience: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dismisses Stale Service Plea With ₹25K Cost Section 29 NDPS Act | Mere Allegation Of 'Cooperation' Without Specific Overt Acts Cannot Sustain Charge Of Conspiracy: Rajasthan High Court Forest Land Status Does Not Extinguish Private Civil Title: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Decree For Possession Once Admitted In Evidence, Document Cannot Be De-Marked On Grounds Of Insufficiency Of Stamp Duty: Telangana High Court Section 190 BNSS | Mere Presence In Unlawful Assembly With Active Intent Renders Member Vicariously Liable For Homicidal Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court Contributory Negligence Under Motor Vehicles Act Cannot Be Inferred Without Cogent Evidence: Telangana High Court Enhances Compensation Motor Vehicles Act | Section 164 Compensation Of Rs. 5 Lakhs Applicable Even To Pending Claims Arising Prior To 2019 Amendment: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consumer Protection Act | Builder Liable To Pay Interest For Delayed Possession Despite Force Majeure Plea If Agreement Executed Post-Outbreak: State Commission

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