IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                              PRESENT

              THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

    TUESDAY ,THE 05TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 / 16TH MAGHA, 1940

                       WP(C).No. 9638 of 2015

PETITIONER:

              MARIAMMA VARGHESE
              AGED 70 YEARS
              ODASSERIL, BANK ROAD, KAYAMKULAM PO

              BY ADVS.
              SRI.GEORGE VARGHESE(PERUMPALLIKUTTIYIL)
              SMT.PARVATHY NAIR
              SRI.A.R.DILEEP
              SRI.MANU SEBASTIAN

RESPONDENTS:
       1     KAYAMKULAM MUNICIPALITY
             REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, KAYAMKULAM, ALAPPUZHA
             DISTRICT 690502

      2       SECRETARY KAYAMKULAM MUNICIPALITY
              KAYAMKULAM, ALAPPZHA DISTRICT 690502

      3       KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
              REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, KSPCB HEAD OFFICE,
              PATTOM PO, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695004

      4       ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER
              KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, ALAPPUZHA
              DISTRICT OFFICE, AMC/X/502 THATTAMPALLY PO,
              ALAPUZHA 688013

      5       SAIFUDDEN
              S/O.ABDUL KHADER KUNJU, VADAKKE THALAYAKKAL HOUSE,
              ERUVA, KAYAMKULAM 690564

              BY ADVS.
              R3 & R4 BY SRI. T.NAVEEN SC, KERALA STATE POLLUTION
              CONTROL BOARD,
              R5 BY SRI.R.SUNIL KUMAR

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
05.02.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C).No. 9638 of 2015                              2

                                        JUDGMENT

This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking the following reliefs:

i) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing respondents 1 to 4 to take effective steps to stop the operation of the mill in building No.KMC 13/365 of Kayamkulam Municipality by the 5th respondent forthwith, until necessary licence and consent has been obtained by the mill from the 1st respondent.

ii) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing respondents 1 to 4 to take penal action against the 5th respondent under Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, Environment Protection Act and Rules and Ext.P9 circular.

Iii) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing respondents 1 to 4 to take effective steps to ensure that the 5th respondent desist from operating the mill in building No.KMC 13/365 of Kayamkulam Municipality until necessary licence and consent has been obtained from the 3rd respondent.

iv) Issue such writs, directions or orders as deemed fit to secure the ends of justice.

2. Apparently the subject issue relates to the year 2015-2016. The grievance put forth by the WP(C).No. 9638 of 2015 3 petitioner is that, the party respondent i.e., the 5th respondent is conducting a mill without securing necessary clearances from the Kayamkulam Municipality as well as the Kerala State Pollution Control Board. The Municipality has issued a stop memo and challenging the same the party respondent preferred an appeal before the Municipal Council. These are the circumstances available on record as on the date of filing this writ petition.

3. The writ petition was pending before this court from the year 2015, however, an interim order was passed by this court on 7.6.2018 directing the 5th respondent not to operate the unit except with the consent of the 3rd respondent i.e., the Pollution Control Board. Now if at all party respondent has secured any licence from the Municipality, it is due to expire on 30.1.2019 and consequent to the interim order passed by this court specified above, the party respondent is unable to carry on with functioning of the unit.

4. Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of leaving open the liberty of the petitioner to file suitable objection to any licence application/consent WP(C).No. 9638 of 2015 4 application submitted before the respective statutory authorities by the party respondent and contest the proceedings. If any such objection is filed by the petitioner before any of the statutory authorities, notice shall be issued to the petitioner before finalising any application submitted by the 5th respondent and a decision shall be taken only after providing sufficient opportunity of hearing and participation to the petitioner and the 5th respondent.

The writ petition is allowed to the above extent.

  Smv                                              Sd/-
  5.2.2019
                                              SHAJI P.CHALY

                                                  JUDGE
 WP(C).No. 9638 of 2015           5

                             APPENDIX
  PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:




EXHIBIT P1           P1:A TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 17.11.2005

IN RCR 328/2005 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT EXHIBIT P2 P2:A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 12.11.2013 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT AND TRANSLATION EXHIBIT P3 P3:A TRUE COPY OF NOTICE NO.14182/2013 DATED 09.12.2013 AND TRANSLATION EXHIBIT P4 P4:A TRUE COPY OF REPLY DATED 23.12.2013 FILED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT BEFORE 2ND RESPONDENT AND TRANSLATION EXHIBIT P5 P5:A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT AND TRANSLATION EXHIBIT P6 P6:A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO.

PCB/ALP/CG-2/14 DATED 15.05.2014 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT AND TRANSLATION EXHIBIT P7 P7:A TRUE COPY OF NOTICE NO. PH1-14132/2013 DATED 21.10.2014 AND TRANSLATION EXHIBIT P8 P8:A TRUE COPY OF APPEAL DATED 11.11.2014 FILED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT AND TRANSLATION EXHIBIT P9 P9: A TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO.

PCB/T4/115/97 DATED 09.12.2013