Panchayat:Repo18/Law Manual Page0312

company of the words "Factory" and "Workshop". The intention of the Legislature is to promote public health by creating safeguards by subjecting even proposal to establish factories, workshops and workplaces to scrutiny and to grant permission conditionally or unconditionally or even to refuse permission. – Essar Telecom Infrastructure (P) Ltd. (M/s.) v. State of Kerala - 2011 (2) KHC 171 (DB): 2011 (2) KLT 516: 2011 (2) KLJ 335.

The intention of the Legislature is to promote public health by creating safeguards by subjecting even proposal to establish factories, workshops and workplaces to scrutiny and to grant permission conditionally or unconditionally or even to refuse permission. The concept of "Factory", inevitably involves the employment of "Workmen". Under the Factories Act, a factory is inextricably intertwined with the concept of manufacturing process. Of course, the word "manufacturing process" has been defined to embrace within its scope various activities and it is not to be confused with the concept of bringing a new product into existence. We have already noticed that under the Panchayat Raj (Issue of Licence to Dangerous and Offensive Trades And Factories) Rules, 1996 as also Section 247 of the Kerala Municipalities Act, the concept of "worker" is to be the same as the concept in the Factories Act. (Para 84) - Essar Telecom Infrastructure (P) Ltd. (M/s.) v. State of Kerala – 2011 (2) KHC 171 (DB): 2011 (2) KLT 516: 2011 (2) KLJ 335.

In Byju K.J. v. Mundathikkodu Grama Panchayath and Others the application for quarrying permit was rejected. The court was of the view that before rejecting the application, suitability of the site for the proposed activity has to be considered. Committee of the Panchayat cannot reject the application without following the procedure as laid down in Section 233 of the Act and Rule 12 of the Rules. - 2011 (1) KHC 246 : 2011 (1) KLT 315.

The pleadings and the materials on record disclose that the fifth respondent is conducting quarrying operations without obtaining a licence from the local authority and that the quarry is located within 100 metres from the nearby residential houses. It is also evident from the pleadings that the quarry has a depth of approximately 25 metres. A Division Bench of this Court has in Gem Granites v. Deputy Superintendent of Police held that quarrying operations cannot be conducted otherwise than in accordance with a licence issued by the local authority under the Kerala Panchayat Raj (issue of Licence to Dangerous and Offensive Trades and Factories) rules, 1996. It was held that if a dangerous or offensive trade takes place at a mine or a quarry, permit or licence for the same is required, notwithstanding the licence granted under the provisions of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 and the Rules framed thereunder and that the licence/permission granted under one Act is not a substitute for the licence/permission under another Act. In the light of the authoritative pronouncement of this Court in Gem Granites v. Deputy Superintendent of Police, the fifth respondent who does not possess any permit/licence issued by the fourth respondent under the provisions of Kerala Panchayat Raj (Issue of Licence to Dangerous and Offensive Trades and Factories) Rules, 1996, cannot operate the quarry. (Para 7) - Ambika Pappu and Others v. District Collector, Ernakulam and Others - 2010 (3) KHC 253 : 2010 (3) KLT SN 98.

In Rule 8(1) of the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1967, it was prescribed that the depth of the pit to be used for quarrying shall not exceed 20 feet. The said provision was deleted by SRO No. 270 of 2008. A learned Single Judge of this Court has in Gokuldas v. Geologist, after noticing the fact that Rule 8(1) of the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1967 has been deleted, removing the limitation on the depth of the pit to be used for quarrying, held that notwithstanding the deletion of the Rule, all Geologists in the State of Kerala shall impose a condition while granting quarrying permits restricting the depth of the pit to be used for quarrying as 20 feet below the surface. - Ambika Pappu and Others v. District Collector, Ernakulam and Others - 2010 (3) KHC 253 : 2010 (3) KLT SN 98. [Gem Granites v. Deputy Superintendent of Police, 2008 (1) KHC 909. [2008 (1) KLT 937: 2008 (1) KLD SN 515: ILR 2008 (1) Ker. 619 : AIR 2008 Ker. 170 : 2008 (1) KLJ 795; (Para 7); Gokuldas v. Geologist, 2009 (3) KHC 821 : 2009 (3) KLT 924; (Paras 8, 9) - Referred to).

It is submitted that the quarrying operations have been brought under the purview of the Board with effect from 13-6-2007 as per the directions of this Hon'ble Court. A Committee was constituted by the Board consisting of representatives of other Statutory Authorities viz. Mining and Geology and Explosives for formulating specific norms. As no other control measures for reducing pollution from quarry operations are feasible, distance norms were finalized by the Committee. As per the norms, there should be minimum distance of 100 metres from the boundary of the quarrying operations area to the nearest resident for new quarries (established after 13-06-2007) and 50 metres for existing quarries (established before 13-06-2007). Detailed Circular with respect to the siting norms and sound and dust level limits are prescribed. - Ambika Pappu and Others v. District Collector, Ernakulam and Others - 2010 (3) KHC 253 : 2010 (3) KLT SN 98. (Gem Granites v. Deputy Superintendent of Police, 2008 (1)