Try out our Premium Member services: Virtual Legal Assistant, Query Alert Service and an ad-free experience. Free for one month and pay only if you like it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF AUGUST 2017/8TH BHADRA, 1939
W.P(C).No.13180 of 2017 (V)
----------------------------
PETITIONER(S):-
---------------
1. R.PRASENAN
CHAKKALAYIL HOUSE, MARU-NORTH,
ALUMKADAVU P.O., KARUNAGAPALLY,
KOLLAM DISTRICT.690 573.
2. ANISENAN,
CHAKKALAYIL HOUSE, MARU-NORTH,
ALUMKADAVU P.O., KARUNAGAPALLY,
KOLLAM DISTRICT.690 573.
BY ADV. SRI.S.NIKHIL SANKAR.
RESPONDENT(S):-
----------------
1. THE SENIOR ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER,
KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD,
DISTRICT OFFICE, KOLLAM DISTRICT.691 001.
2. KARUNAGAPALLY MUNICIPALITY,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
KARUNAGAPALLY, KOLLAM DISTRICT.
PIN-690 518.
3. STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
KARUNAGAPALLY POLICE STATION,
KOLLAM DISTRICT.690 518.
4. DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER,
D.M.O. OFFICE, KOLLAM DISTRICT.691 001.
5. SHERI,
P.G.S.HOLLOW BRICKS, MARU-NORTH,
ALUMKADAVU P.O., KARUNAGAPPALLY,
KOLLAM DISTRICT.690 573.
R1 BY STANDING COUNSEL SRI. T.NAVEEN.
R2 BY ADV. SRI.M.R.SASITH.
R3 & R4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.RAJI T.BHASKAR.
R5 BY ADVS. SRI.ASP.KURUP
SRI.SADCHITH.P.KURUP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
30-08-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:-
WP(C).No.13180 of 2017 (V)
----------------------------
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS:-
------------------------
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 27.03.2014 ALONG
WITH ITS RECEIPT, SUBMITTED BEFORE THE SENIOR ENVIRONMENTAL
ENGINEER KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD,
KOLLAM DISTRICT.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BEFORE THE
2ND RESPONDENT BY THE PETITIONERS DATED 27.01.2016.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR DATED 20.7.2011 BEARING
PCB/T4/115/97 ISSUED BY THE BOARD.
EXHIBIT P4 PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE DAMAGES CAUSED BY THE FIFTH RESPONDENT'S
HOLLOW BRICK UNIT TO THE PETITIONERS RESIDENCE.
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:-
-------------------------
EXHIBIT R5A COPY OF LICENSE NO.3711 DATED 28.4.2015 ISSUED BY
KARUNAGAPPALLY MUNICIPALITY.
EXHIBIT R5B COPY OF LICENSE NO.7087 DATED 12.08.2016 ISSUED BY
KARUNAGAPPALLY MUNICIPALITY.
EXHIBIT R5C COPY OF OF INTEGRATED CONSENT TO OPERATE RENEWAL
DATED 31.3.2017 ISSUED BY KERALA POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD.
EXHIBIT R5D COPY OF SKETCH ISSUED BY THE ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER.
EXHIBIT R5E COPY OF CONSENT DATED NIL. GIVEN BY NEARBY RESIDENTS
TO THE 5TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT R5F COPY OF PLAINT NO.202/2016 FILED BY PETITIONERS BEFORE
MUNSIFF'S COURT, KARUNAGAPPALLY.
EXHIBIT R5G COPY OF WRITTEN STATEMENT DATED 29.9.2016 FILED BY
' 5TH RESPONDENT IN OS.202/16.
Vku/- [ true copy ]
P.S. to Judge
K. Vinod Chandran, J
----------------------------------------
W.P.(C).No.13180 of 2017-V
-----------------------------------------
Dated this the 30th day of August, 2017
JUDGMENT
The petitioners in the writ petition raise a specific contention against the 5th respondent's hollow bricks unit; that the same is functioning without obtaining necessary statutory licenses, permissions, consent and No Objection Certificates under the Air (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 and the D & O Rules made under the Kerala Municipalities Act, 1994.
2. The 5th respondent appeared and filed a counter affidavit, producing the statutory licences and the permissions. It was also contended that admitting the issue of licences and permissions, a suit was filed by the very same petitioners, seeking an injunction against the renewal of license; with the 5th respondent and the Municipality in the party array. The petitioners have suppressed the said fact in the writ petition and have taken up a totally different contention; that the 5th respondent is running the hollow bricks unit without any sanctions or permit.
WP(C) No.13180 of 2017 - 2 -
3. In the context of the counter affidavit, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners only argued that the issue of the distance as specified in Exhibit P3 have been violated. In Exhibit P3, the hollow bricks unit has to have a minimum set back of 25 metres and a minimum distance of 50 metres to residences and other establishments. The learned Standing Counsel for the Kerala State Pollution Control Board [for brevity "PCB"], would submit that Exhibit P3 would be applicable only prospectively and the specific contention of the 5th respondent in his counter is that the Unit was started in 2011 and P3 is dated 20.07.2011. This is an issue which could be raised before the PCB, who could carry out necessary verification.
4. However, the writ petition is not on the said lines. As was noticed, the writ petition specifically alleged that the 5th respondent is carrying on the unit without licenses and permissions. The 5th respondent asserts that a license was obtained by the 5th respondent from 2011 onward and the unit has been continuously operating from then. Exhibit R5A is the license issued by the Municipality for the year 2015-16 and Exhibit R5B is that issued for the year 2016-17. When a renewal was sought for WP(C) No.13180 of 2017 - 3 - the year 2017-18, an objection was raised by the petitioners before the Municipality that there was no consent to operate issued by the PCB. The 5th respondent having produced Exhibit R5C, Integrated Consent to Operate; the learned Standing Counsel for the Municipality submits; the license has been renewed for the year 2017-18 also. In such circumstances, the contentions raised in the writ petition are devoid of merit.
5. It is seen from Exhibit R5F, a plaint filed by the petitioners themselves before the Munsiff's Court, Karunagappally, numbered as O.S.No.202 of 2016, that they had specifically in paragraph 6 admitted to the licenses having been issued to the 5th respondent on his exerting undue influence on the official respondents. The prayer in the suit was also to injunct the Municipality from renewing the D&O Licence.
6. Obviously the petitioners had approached the Munsiff's Court with a suit and on not obtaining an injunction, has approached this Court with totally different contentions. It is pertinent that this Court had also, on the basis of the contentions raised in the writ petition, directed the 2nd respondent to carry out an inspection and stop the unit if the unit is carried out without WP(C) No.13180 of 2017 - 4 - licenses and permissions. The petitioners are guilty of suppression of material facts in the writ petition and are also guilty of taking quite contrary and opposite stances in the suit and the writ petition. The averments made in the suit specifically reveal the petitioners' knowledge of the various licences and permissions obtained by the 5th respondent. However, in the writ petition filed, the petitioners have asserted that the unit is carried out without the necessary statutory licenses; which is a deliberate falsehood.
In the above circumstances, the writ petition would stand dismissed with exemplary cost of Rs.5,000/- [Rupees five thousand] each, which the petitioners would pay to the 5th respondent. If the petitioners pay such amounts and then raise a complaint before the PCB as to the violation of distance rule, then the same shall be considered by the PCB. The 5th respondent would be entitled to establish before the PCB that the unit was established prior to Exhibit P3.
Sd/-
K.Vinod Chandran Judge.
Vku/-
[ true copy ]