Supreme Court Strikes Down Expulsion of Bihar MLC as Disproportionate, Orders Immediate Reinstatement Private Banks Not Subject to Writ Jurisdiction Under Article 226: Punjab & Haryana High Court Mere Allegation of Forgery is Not Enough: Madhya Pradesh High Court Dismisses Second Appeal in Partition Dispute When a Case is Made Out for Bail, Courts Should Not Hesitate: Kerala High Court Allows Bail Despite Commercial Quantity of Drugs Seized Retailers Cannot Be Prosecuted for Manufacturer’s Fault" – Karnataka High Court Quashes Case Against Pesticide Dealers Mere Issuance of a Cheque Does Not Prove Legally Enforceable Debt": Delhi High Court Upholds Acquittal in Cheque Dishonor Case Courts Cannot Ignore Urgent Repairs When Public Safety is at Stake: Calcutta High Court Upholds Trial Court's Order Mutation Entries Do Not Confer Ownership: Bombay High Court Rejects Premature Dismissal of Partition Suit No Substantial Question of Law – High Court Cannot Re-Appreciate Evidence Under Section 100 CPC: Andhra Pradesh High Court Injunction Cannot Be Granted Without Proof of Possession: Allahabad High Court Quashes Relief in Land Dispute Section 197 CrPC | Sanction for Prosecution is a Shield, Not a Sword: Supreme Court Quashes Criminal Case Against BIS Officer Landlord is the Best Judge of His Needs: Supreme Court Orders Eviction in Favor of Landowner Vijaya Bank TT Scam | Supreme Court Acquits Jeweller in ₹6.7 Crore Vijaya Bank Fraud Case, Orders Return of 205 Gold Bars Procurement Preference for Small Enterprises is a Legal Mandate, Not a Mere Policy: Supreme Court Rules in Favor of MSMEs Revisional Jurisdiction Cannot Be Invoked Against Interlocutory Orders of Commercial Courts: Orissa High Court Declares Section 8 Bar Absolute Victim’s Testimony Must Be of Sterling Quality to Be Sole Basis of Conviction: Kerala High Court Reduces Sentence of Pastor Convicted for Repeated Rape of Minor Providing Set-Top Boxes to Subscribers Constitutes Sale”: Karnataka High Court Upholds VAT on Tata Play Limited Mere Registration of FIR Cannot Justify Denial of Passport Renewal: Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh 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"]

Similar News