IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 21884 of 2008(S)


1. JANAKIYA SAMARA SAMITHI, MULAKKULAM
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. MULAKKULAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH,
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

3. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOTTAYAM.

4. THE R.D.O., PALA.

5. DISTRICT GEOLOGIST, KOTTAYAM.

6. DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER, KOTTAYAM.

7. THE DIRECTOR, AGRICULTURAL DEPARTMENT

8. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MULAKKULAM-

9. P.V.ELIAS, PROPRIETOR, A&C BRICKS,

10. CHACKO.C.K., PROPRIETOR-M/S.KATTEH

11. MRS.SARADA SUKUMARAN, PROPRIETRIX,

12. T.P.GEORGE, PROPRIETOR-M/S.PAULSON CLAY

13. T.N.MOHANAN, PROPRIETOR-M/S.ALLY BRICKS,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.SIVAN MADATHIL

                For Respondent  :SRI.P.P.JACOB

The Hon'ble the Chief Justice MR.S.R.BANNURMATH
The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN

 Dated :18/12/2009

 O R D E R
                     S.R.Bannurmath, C.J. &
                 Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J.
                ------------------------------------------
                   W.P. (C) No.21884 of 2008
                ------------------------------------------
           Dated this the 18th day of December, 2009

                           JUDGMENT

Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J.

The petitioner samithi exposes a cause of concern in relation to large scale excavation of clay for brick manufacturing and also the fact that the pits formed by such excavation are left unfilled. The private parties who have entered appearance are yet to place any counter affidavit on record.

2. In the report dated 31st July, 2008, submitted by the Environmental Engineer, Kerala State Pollution Control Board, it is stated that based on complaints, the area was inspected by his office and the brick kilns were found to be sufficiently away from nearby residences, in accordance with the set back norms fixed by the Pollution Control Board. The  W.P.(C) No.21884 of 2008 2 official of the Pollution Control Board states that fire wood is the fuel used for burning and the duration of burning is generally for a period of 24 hours in each kiln. In terms of the provisions contained in Section 21 of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981, it is pointed out that consent to operate is issued only with the condition that the kiln has to be covered on its sides with mud plaster or tarpaulin to prevent smoke emission from sides during burning process and that fabricated hood type roof system with drought-fan and exhaust pipe of 15 metres height has to be provided on the top of each kiln to drive out smoke during the burning process and also the other conditions in terms of the Pollution Control Board guidelines. Annexure R2(a) is placed on record as a model consent order.

3. In so far as the pits are concerned, the 5th respondent Geologist has filed a counter affidavit stating amongst other things that earnest efforts are being taken to abide  W.P.(C) No.21884 of 2008 3 by all the directions already issued by this Court in the judgment reported in Soman v. Geologist (2004 (3) KLT 577) and that on inspection it appears that a good number of pits from which clay was drawn have been left unfilled. An evaluation statement is placed along with the counter affidavit of the Geologist which shows that action has been taken even by revenue recovery proceedings for refilling the pits. But the fact of the matter remains that the District Collector and the Geologist will have to ensure that the pits are filled and no pit is left unfilled even if the operator does not fill it soon. If there is inaction on the part of any operator to fill up the pits, Governmental machinery shall be immediately brought into action to enforce proceedings and to ensure that the pits are filled and amounts due for that is recovered in terms of the law from the erring operators. Action taken reports in this regard are called for having regard to the grave situation disclosed by the photographs which are placed on record.

W.P.(C) No.21884 of 2008 4

4. Hence it is ordered that the District Collector, Kottayam will ensure that the 5th respondent Geologist files an action taken report in this regard in regular intervals of six months each before the Registrar General of this Court with the concurrence of the District Collector without fail.

Writ petition is ordered accordingly.

S.R.Bannurmath, Chief Justice Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, Judge vns