Custodial Death | Pendency Of Criminal Trial No Bar For Awarding Compensation Under Public Law Remedy: Gauhati High Court Suit For Possession Under Section 6 Specific Relief Act Barred If Filed Beyond Six Months Of Dispossession: Madras High Court Subsequent Purchaser Is Representative Of Judgment Debtor, Separate Suit Challenging Execution Sale Barred Under Section 47 CPC: Kerala High Court Statutory Bail Restrictions Melt Down When Pre-Trial Detention Is Prolonged & Trial Is Unlikely To Conclude Soon: Delhi High Court Failure To Apprise Accused Of Right Under Section 50 NDPS Act Vitiates Search & Recovery: J&K & Ladakh High Court Section 12(5) Arbitration Act Inapplicable To Proceedings Commenced Before 2015 Amendment; Executing Court Can't Apply Neutrality Norms Retrospectively: Punjab & Haryana High Court Banks Can Share Sale Proceeds Of Secured Assets Outside Liquidation Estate With Homebuyers Under Compromise Agreement: Kerala High Court Private Rights Must Yield To Public Interest: Andhra Pradesh High Court Directs Removal Of Encroachments On Public Road Review Jurisdiction Cannot Be Invoked To Re-Agitate Factual Disputes Or Seek Re-Hearing On Merits: Allahabad High Court Recovery Under Section 27 Evidence Act Vitiated If Police Already Present At Spot Before Arrival Of Panch Witnesses: Bombay High Court Mere Non-Compliance Or Delay In Procedure Under Section 52A NDPS Act Is An Irregularity, Not An Illegality Entitling Accused To Bail: Calcutta High Court Recovery Of Weapon Used In Commission Of Offence Not A Sine Qua Non For Conviction If Ocular Evidence Is Corroborated: Allahabad High Court Seized Vehicles Shouldn't Be Kept Idle To Rot In Police Stations, Utility Vanishes Due To Stagnation: Karnataka High Court Or 39 CPC | Trial Court Erred In Dismissing Injunction Application Despite Respondent's 'No Objection' To Restraining Share Transfer: Gauhati High Court Issuing NBW Merely For Absence Of Accused Already On Bail Is Improper; Liberty Cannot Be Dealt With Lightly: Orissa High Court 138 NI | Expert Examination Of Disputed Documents Essential For Just Adjudication If Complainant Denies Handwriting & Signatures: Rajasthan High Court Order 41 Rule 27 CPC Cannot Be Invoked To Fill Lacunae In Evidence If Party Voluntarily Closed Evidence In Trial Court: Delhi High Court

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