Kerala Micro Small and Medium Enterprises Facilitation Act,2019 – ss.2,5,6 and 10 – Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 – Kerala Panchayat Building Rules, 2019 – Rule 68 – ‘GEA’ purchased Hot Mix Plants for undertaking road works – They obtained an acknowledgement certificate u/s. 5 of the Act of 2019 and submitted an application to the Panchayat for the grant of a license for installation of the Plant – They obtained “Consent to Establish” from the Kerala State Pollution Control Board – Their application before the Panchayat was rejected by the Gram Panchayat – Held: It is admitted that ‘GEA’ have obtained consent to establish, from the Kerala State Pollution Control Board and also obtained an Acknowledgment Certificate under s. 5(3) of Act of 2019 – Acknowledgement certificate shall have effect as if it is an approval as defined in s. 2(c) – S. 10 of the Kerala MSME Act not only confers overriding effect to the Act on other laws, but also makes a specific reference to the Act of 1994 – s. 10(2) of the Kerala MSME Act makes it clear that the provisions of the Act of 1994, shall be read as amended to be in conformity with the provisions of the Kerala MSME Act – Thus, the prayer of ‘GEA’ is deserves to be granted in light of the statutory prescription.
Disposing of the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. A bare reading of the order of the Single Judge and the Division Bench would show that the most vital aspect has been lost sight of. Admittedly, the writ petitioners have obtained consent to establish, from the Kerala State Pollution Control Board. It is also admitted that the writ petitioners have obtained an Acknowledgment Certificate under Section 5(3) of the Kerala MSME Act. It is seen from Section 6(1) extracted above that an Acknowledgement Certificate shall have effect as if it is an approval as defined in Section 2(c). What is held against the writ petitioners today is the requirement of a permission under the Act of 1994. But Section 10 of the Kerala MSME Act not only confers overriding effect to the Act on other laws, but also makes a specific reference to the Act of 1994. The prayer made by the writ petitioners in their second writ petition, deserved to be granted, clearly in the light of the statutory prescription. [Paras 8, 9, 10 and 11][417-G-H; 418-A, E, G; 419-E]
2. The Kerala MSME Act overrides the 1994 Act and a few other local enactments. This is why the writ petitioners have taken “consent” from the Pollution Control Board. Once consent is taken from the Pollution Control Board, the necessity for reading down Section 10 of the Kerala MSME Act, for the purpose of protecting the environment, does not arise. [Para 16][420-E-F] T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad vs. Union of India and Ors. (2011) 7 SCC 338 : [2011] 7 SCR 954; Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (MCGM) vs. Abhilash Lal & Ors. (2020) 13 SCC 234 : [2019] 14 SCR 659; A.P. Pollution Control Board vs. Prof. M.V. Nayudu (Retd.) and Ors. (1999) 2 SCC 718 : [1999] 1 SCR
235 – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.