-
by Admin
19 December 2025 4:21 PM
“Secretary cannot issue a stop memo under Section 233A(3) unless a conclusion is arrived at, based on materials including expert opinion” — Kerala High Court, in a powerful reaffirmation of procedural discipline in environmental governance, quashed a stop memo issued by the Secretary of Manjalloor Grama Panchayat, which sought to prohibit the functioning of a licensed granite quarry on allegations of public nuisance.
In W.P.(C) Nos. 29170, 31320 & 32702 of 2022 and 25327 of 2023, the Court, presided over by Justice Viju Abraham, held that Section 233A of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, cannot be invoked without strictly following its procedural prerequisites, especially where such prohibition would affect legal rights arising from environmental clearances and mining licenses.
“Calling for expert reports itself shows the Panchayat is unsure of the nuisance — Without prior direction to abate, a stop memo is legally unsustainable”
The case centered around complaints filed by local residents led by Senso V. Scaria and others, alleging that the quarry run by T.L. George was causing significant damage to residential structures, drinking water sources, and roads. Based on these allegations, and without completing the required expert assessment, the Panchayat issued a stop memo under Section 233A.
The Court found this approach fundamentally flawed. It ruled:
“The Secretary of the Panchayat has not issued any direction as contemplated under Section 233A(1) to the quarry owner nor any expert opinion has been obtained... The stop memo is, therefore, unsustainable in law.”
The Court emphasized that the issuance of a stop memo requires two key legal conditions — either a willful default in complying with prior abatement orders or a finding that nuisance abatement is impracticable. Neither of these was fulfilled.
“Having All Licences Cannot Be Brushed Aside — Quarry Is Legally Sanctioned to Operate”
The quarry operator, in his petition W.P.(C) No. 31320/2022, laid out that he was in possession of all requisite permissions including:
Quarrying Lease,
Environmental Clearance,
Consent to Operate from the Pollution Control Board,
Explosive License,
License from the Industrial Single Window Clearance Board.
He also produced an expert report from the National Institute of Technology, Suratkal, which categorically found:
“No vibration was recorded in the residential houses or water tanks during quarry blasting, and the cracks observed were not attributable to blasting operations.”
Despite these findings, the Panchayat's stop memo failed to reflect any objective conclusion or expert basis. Instead, it appeared to act pre-emptively, citing ongoing complaints and reports yet to be received.
“Section 233A is Not a Weapon of Pre-Emption — It Requires Factual Certainty, Not Suspicion”
The High Court explained the legal scheme of Section 233A, stating:
“Action for prohibiting a nearby workplace or machinery can be taken by the Village Panchayat / Secretary only if the abatement of the nuisance is found impracticable or the direction to abate nuisance is not obeyed… The Panchayat has not even issued a direction for abatement.”
The judgment drew heavily from Lizy Aby v. State of Kerala [2021 (1) KLT 374], in which the Court had previously clarified:
“Without arriving at a conclusion based on materials including expert opinion... the Secretary cannot issue a prohibitory order under sub-section (3) of Section 233A.”
The Court found the Panchayat’s approach in conflict with this legal precedent and accordingly quashed the stop memo.
“Environmental Concerns Must Follow Due Process — Panchayat Can Act Only After Reports and Hearing”
The Court did not close the door on further action. Instead, it issued a direction:
“The Secretary shall take a decision in the matter as to whether the provisions of Section 233A(3) are to be invoked, after obtaining necessary reports from the District Geologist, Pollution Control Board and Kerala Water Authority, and affording an opportunity of being heard to the quarry owner.”
These reports must be submitted within one month of the judgment.
“Delegation of Road Maintenance to Quarry Owner Must Not Exclude Panchayat's Duty”
Another key issue in the petitions was the delegation of maintenance of the public road—used by heavy quarry vehicles—to the quarry operator. Residents alleged that the road was in a dilapidated condition, unfit for safe use.
The Court did not cancel this delegation but clarified:
“The 1st respondent shall see that the road in question is maintained in perfect condition… and if damage to the road is due to quarry activities, the Panchayat may demand compensation and ensure motorability.”
“Licence Cannot Be Cancelled Merely Because It Was Issued Under Court Direction”
In W.P.(C) No. 32702/2022, another local petitioner challenged the Single Window Clearance Board’s grant of quarry licence. The Court rejected this challenge, noting that:
“The licence was granted based on a direction issued by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 20725/2020... There is no merit in the contention that a proper hearing was not given.”
Similarly, W.P.(C) No. 25327/2023, which sought to challenge the environmental clearance and mining lease granted to the quarry operator, was dismissed. The Court held that these orders were appealable under the relevant statutes and refused to intervene, leaving the petitioner at liberty to pursue alternative legal remedies.
“Judicial Scrutiny Must Balance Environmental Justice with Legal Process — Rights Cannot Be Suspended on Allegations Alone”
In its concluding remarks, the High Court carefully balanced environmental sensitivity with procedural integrity:
“Setting aside of the stop memo will not preclude the Panchayat from invoking Section 233A in future… but only after reports are received, and the quarry owner is heard.”
By insisting on strict compliance with law, expert evidence, and procedural fairness, the Kerala High Court laid down a crucial precedent that municipal or local authorities cannot act punitively against legally operating establishments based on unverified complaints or incomplete investigations.
Date of Decision: 27 August 2025
