Section 9 A&C Act Relief Available Until Award Is Actually Enforced, Even After It Becomes Enforceable: Telangana High Court Matrimonial Litigations Must Not Degenerate Into Contests Of Mutual Humiliation By Weaponising Private Images: Delhi High Court Unarmed Witnesses’ Inaction Against Armed Assailants Justified By Instinct Of Self-Preservation; Testimony Cannot Be Discarded: Allahabad High Court Ocular Evidence Outweighs Motive: Andhra Pradesh High Court Upholds Murder Conviction Based On Reliable Eyewitness Testimony Arrest Illegal If Written 'Grounds Of Arrest' Not Furnished To Accused; Communication Of Mere 'Reasons' Insufficient: Bombay High Court Absence Of Territorial Jurisdiction No Ground To Quash FIR At Threshold If Allegations Disclose Cognizable Offence: Calcutta High Court Proof Of Demand Is Sine Qua Non For PC Act Conviction; Voice Recordings Inadmissible Without Sec 65-B Certificate: Chhattisgarh HC Section 91 IEA | Disposition Of Immovable Property Cannot Be Proved By Oral Evidence If Written Document Not Produced: Delhi High Court NRC Legacy Data Extracts Inadmissible Without Section 65B Certificate; PAN Card & EPIC Not Proof Of Citizenship: Gauhati High Court Testimony Of Injured Witness Entitled To Great Weight; Minor Contradictions Due To Lapse Of Memory Cannot Discard Prosecution Case: Himachal Pradesh High Court Section 164 CrPC Statement Recorded Without Procedural Safeguards Or 'Cooling-Off' Period Not A Valid Confession: Jharkhand High Court Anticipatory Bail Cannot Be Denied Merely Because Investigation Is At A Nascent Stage If Custodial Interrogation Is Not Indispensable: Telangana High Court Actual Pay Drawn During Last 10 Months Must Be Basis For Pension Calculation, Regardless Of Notional Pay In Parent Bank: Punjab & Haryana High Court Kerala High Court Remands Teacher Seniority Dispute For Fresh Consideration To Verify If Senior Teacher Relinquished Promotion Claim Receipt Of DNA Report After Testimony Doesn't Automatically Confer Right To Recall Witness For Further Cross-Examination: Madhya Pradesh High Court Possession Of 'Bhang' Not An Offence Under NDPS Act, Specific Definition Excludes It: Jharkhand High Court Acquits Man Trial Court Cannot Reject Request For Handwriting Expert Merely Because Signatures Are On Photocopies: Punjab & Haryana 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