The Hindu Business Line : Kerala HC orders panchayat to renew Coke's licence

A DIVISION Bench of the Kerala High Court on Wednesday directed the President of the Perumatty Gram Panchayat to renew in a week's time the licence of Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages Pvt Ltd's plant at Palachimada in Palakkad.

The Bench comprising Mr Justice M. Ramachandran and Mr Justice K.P. Balachandran also ordered that if a licence was not issued by the panchayat within the prescribed time, it shall be deemed that the company possesses the licence and that it would be free to "carry on the functioning of the company from June 10, for two years", subject to the restrictions laid down in its earlier judgement.

The interim directions were issued while allowing an application filed by the company seeking a direction to the panchayat to renew the licence. The company contended that despite the High Court's directives, the Panchayat had not renewed the licence. The company said that it had submitted the required certificates such as licence under the Factories Act and environment laws before the Panchayat as ordered in an earlier judgement.

The panchayat took the stand that the company had not produced the necessary certificates along with the application for renewal of licence. Therefore, the application was said to be not in conformity with the directions of the High Court.

The Bench said that its earlier direction was to consider the application of the company for renewal of its licence. The petitioner had filed the application along with the licences as required under the law. The court observed that even after filing the application, if the panchayat had any doubt about the claim of the company, it would have been prudent on the part of the panchayat to seek further details. However, after sitting over an application for a considerable period, what had been done was the rejection of application, alleging that the functioning of the company would be illegal in the absence of clearance from the Pollution Control Board and also the licence under Factories Act.

The Bench said, "This was highly improper and per se shows a closed mind; the orders of the court had been trifled with, and we restrain ourselves from using strong words." The court added that the panchayat had been ill-advised in the course followed and if further directions were not issued, "it may tantamount to shirking of responsibility and we have to ensure that lawful orders are obeyed."

The Bench said that a panchayt was entitled to hold its own opinion. But when the courts had already pronounced a judgement on the rights and liabilities, the panchayat had " to gracefully accept the verdict."

The court also directed the Pollution Control Board to inspect the premises of the company after it started functioning and ensure that all precautionary measures for safety are observed.

Article E-Mail :: Comment :: Syndication :: Printer Friendly Page