JOLLY GEORGE AND ANR. versus GEORGE ELIAS AND ASSOCIATES AND ORS.

Citation: [2023] 3 S.C.R. 413 · Decided: 12-04-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN · Disposal: Disposed off
cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
413
[2023] 3 S.C.R. 413
413
JOLLY GEORGE AND ANR.
v.
GEORGE ELIAS AND ASSOCIATES AND ORS.
(Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 1333-1335 of 2022)
APRIL 12, 2023
[V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN AND PANKAJ MITHAL, JJ.]
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
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
414
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 3 S.C.R.
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.
Case Law Reference
[2019] 14 SCR 659
referred to
Para 15
[1999] 1 SCR 235
referred to
Para 15
[2011] 7 SCR 954
referred to
Para 17
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 2764-
2766 of 2023.
From the Judgment and Order dated 09.12.2021 of the High Court
of Kerala at Ernakulam in WA Nos. 607, 756 and 741 of 2021.
With
Civil Appeal No. 2767 of 2023.
M/s. Kmnp Law, Ms. Uttara Babbar, V Shyamohan, Ms. Anshika
Bajpai, Martin G George, Ms. Riya Kalra, K. Parameshwar, Harish
Vasudevan, Ms. Arti Gupta, Ms. Kanti, Kuriakose Varghese, C. K. Sasi,
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
415
Abdulla Naseeh V T, Ms. Meena K Poulose, M/s. Lawfic, Sriram
Parakkat, M.S. Vishnu Sankar, Adithya Santosh, Ms. Athira G. Nair,
Sreenath S, Jogy Scaria, Pradeep Kumar Gupta, Ms. Beena Victor, Vivek
Guruprasad Ballekere, Keerthipriyan E, Ms. M Priya, Advs. for the
appearing parties.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, J.
Leave granted.
2. George Elias and Associates, which is respondent No.1 in the
first set of three appeals and which is the appellant in the fourth appeal,
filed two writ petitions in WP (C) Nos.10381 and 17920 of 2020 on the
file of the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam praying respectively for
(i) s
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.