Mere Drying Of Rubber Sheets Doesn’t Amount To Manufacture Requiring License From Panchayat: Kerala High Court

The petition before the High Court was filed by a cancer patient seeking a direction to restrict the alleged illegal functioning of the smokehouse run by her neighbor.

The Single Bench of Justice Harisankar V. Menon stated, “In my opinion, the above submission cannot be accepted since the mere drying of rubber sheets does not amount any manufacture at all. For a particular item to be said to have been manufactured, a new and different commodity should emerge out of the activity. Here, what is dried and what is taken out of the smoke house is one and the same – rubber sheets. Therefore, the provisions of the 1996 Rules would not get attracted to the facts of the afore case.”

“Though the learned counsel for the 5th respondent sought to rely on the Government Order dated 21.01.2020 to contend that there is no requirement for any licence on account of the contents of the afore Government Order, in my opinion, the afore issue does not require to be considered, in view of the interpretation to the provisions of the 1996 Rules, as above. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is not justified in contending that the 5th respondent should obtain a licence from the Panchayat. As already noticed, even the Panchayat does not have a case that the 5th respondent requires to obtain a licence”, it added.

Advocate Abraham P. George represented the Petitioner, while Standing Counsel Wilson Urmese represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The petitioner complained that her neighbor (respondent) was operating a ‘smoke house’ in the nearby property for the purpose of drying latex obtained from his rubber plantation at Illithode near Malayattoor. According to the petitioner, the respondent was operating the smoke house without obtaining the relevant license from the Panchayat and also using ‘sulphur’ in the smoke house for the activities of drying rubber sheets, which was causing pollution in the form of dust and smoke. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner approached the High Court.

Reasoning

Taking note of the allegation that the respondent was drying rubber sheets, the Bench stated that the same would not be covered with reference to the contents of Entry 134 of Schedule I of the Kerala Panchayat Raj (Issue of Licence to Factories, Trades, Entrepreneurship Activities and other Services) Rules, 1996.

The Bench refused to accept the petitioner’s contention that the activity carried on by the respondent amounts to ‘manufacture’, and therefore, the rigour thereunder would be attracted. The Bench was of the view that the mere drying of rubber sheets does not amount to any manufacture at all.

The Bench also found no justification in the petitioner’s contention that the respondent should obtain a licence from the Panchayat. Coming to the contention that sulphur was being used, which required to be interdicted, the Bench noted that the Pollution Control Board had already interdicted the use of sulphur in the smoke house operated by the respondent and in the counter affidavit, the respondent stated that sulphur was not being used by him.

Thus dismissing the petition, the Bench ordered, “...I direct the Pollution Control Board Officials to periodically inspect the smoke house of the 5th respondent to see that the 5th respondent is not using any sulphur in his smoke house.”

Cause Title: Mini Sunny v. Thuravoor Grama Panchayat (Neutral Citation: 2026:KER:13005)

Appearance

Petitioner: Advocates Abraham P. George, M. Santhy

Respondent: Standing Counsel Wilson Urmese, Advocates Dinesh Mathew J. Muricken, M.B. Ratheesh, K.A. Abhilash, Vinod S. Pillai. Mohammed Thayib N.M., Nayana Varghese, Ahammad Sachin K., Johny Thomas, Elsa Jacob, Akash Philip, Sandra K. Sanjay, Standing Counsel T. Naveen

Click here to read/download Order