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 C.K.ABDUL REHIM
THURSDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2013/28TH AGRAHAYANA, 1935
WP(C).No. 26688 of 2013 (I)
-----------------------------------------
PETITIONER:
-------------------
SOMAN, AGED 55 YEARS,
MATTAPURATHU PEELING INDUSTRIES, ERAMALLOOR,
CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN-688 548.
BY ADV. SMT.G.VIDYA
RESPONDENT(S):
----------------------------
1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 004.
2. THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER,
KSEB, ELECTRICAL CIRCLE, ALAPPUZHA-680 001.
3. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
KSEB, ELECTRICAL SUB DIVISION, AROOR-688 534.
4. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER,
KSEB, ELECTRICAL SECTION, AROOR-688 534.
5. KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD,
DISTRICT OFFICE ALAPPUZHA,
REPRESENTED BY ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER,
ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT-688 013.
* ADDL.R6. IMPLEADED
------------------------------
6. V.A.KURIAKOSE, AGED 62 YEARS,
S/O.A.AUGUSTINE, VANYAMPARAMBIL HOUSE, ERMALLOOR.P.O,
EZHUPUNNA, CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.
* ADDL. R6 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 27/11/2013 IN IA 15806/2013.
R1-R4 BY ADVS. SRI.SAJEEVKUMAR K.GOPAL,SC,KSEB
SRI.JAICE JACOB,SC,KSEB
R5 BY ADV. SRI. M.AJAY, SC, KERALA STATE PCB
R6 ADDL. BY ADV. SRI.JOSE ABRAHAM
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 19-12-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Msd.
WP(C).No. 26688 of 2013 (I)
--------------------------------------
APPENDIX
---------------
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS:
--------------------------------------
EXHIBIT P1 : ATRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT
DATED 25-06-2013.
EXHIBIT P2 : ATRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE OF THE 5TH RESPONDENT BOARD
DATED18-3-2013.
EXHIBIT P3 : ATRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND DRAFT DATED 23-07-2013.
EXHIBIT P4 : ATRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT
DATED 02-08-2013.
EXHIBIT P5 : ATRUE COPY OF THE PROPOSAL SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER
DATED 03-08-2013.
EXHIBIT P6 : TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND DRAFT DATED 03-08-2013.
RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES & EXHIBITS:
--------------------------------------------------------------
ANNEXURE R5(A)- TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED TO THE UNIT.
ANNEXURE R5(B)- TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED TO THE LSG.
ANNEXURE R5(C)- TRUE COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE ISSUED TO THE UNIT.
ANNEXURE R5(D)- TRUE COPY OF THE CLOSURE INTENTION NOTICE TO THE UNIT.
ANNEXURE R5(E)- TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER RECEIVED FROM THE
COMPLAINANT.
ANNEXURE R5(F)- TRUE COPY OF THE CLOSURE ORDER ISSUED TO THE UNIT.
ANNEXURE R5(G)- TRUE COPY OF THE DIRECTION TO THE KSEB.
ANNEXURE R5(H)- TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER RECEIVED FROM THE OWNER OF
THE UNIT.
ANNEXURE R5(I)- TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED TO THE UNIT.
ANNEXURE R5(J)- TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT RECEIVED FROM THE OWNER OF
THE UNIT.
ANNEXURE R5(K)- TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER TO THE UNIT.
EXHIBIT R6(1)- TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE
EZHUPUNNA GRAMA PANCHAYATH
Msd. ...2/-
..2..
WP(C).No. 26688 of 2013 (I)
--------------------------------------
EXHIBIT R6(2)- TRUE COPY OF THE CLOSURE ORDER NO: PCB/ALP/UCO-1295/09
DATED 18/09/2012.
EXHIBIT R6(3)- TRUE COPY OF THE DIRECTION NO: PCB/ALP/UCO-1295/09
DATED 21/06/2013.
EXHIBIT R6(4)- TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 09/11/2012 FILED UNDER
THE R.I.ACT.
EXHIBIT R6(5)- TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 04/12/2012 BY THE EZHUPUNNA
GRAMA PANCHAYATH.
//TRUE COPY\\
P.A.TO JUDGE.
Msd.
C.K. ABDUL REHIM, J.
-------------------------------------------------
W.P.(c) No. 26688 OF 2013-I
-------------------------------------------------
DATED THIS THE 20th DAY OF DECEMBER, 2013.
J U D G M E N T
Challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P1 notice issued by the 4th respondent for disconnection of electric supply to the industry run by the petitioner. It is mentioned in Ext.P1 that the disconnection is proposed on the basis of direction issued by the 5th respondent under Section 33-A of the Water (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act 1974 and under Section 31-A of the Air (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1981. Inter alia, the petitioner seeks direction for restoration of the electric connection.
2. Facts reveled in this writ petition indicates that, the 5th respondent had issued Ext.R5 (k) letter to the petitioner intimating that their request for grant of 'consent to operate' can be considered only if the petitioner submits detailed time bound proposal for establishment of an effluent treatment plant, for treatment of effluents W.P.(c) No.26688/2013 -2- generated from the industrial unit. According to learned counsel for the petitioner pursuant to Ext.R5 (k) letter the petitioner had already submitted a proposal for establishment of the effluent treatment plant, before the 5th respondent, on 13-12-2013. It is for the 5th respondent to consider such proposal if any submitted and to evaluate adequacy of the proposal and also to take a decision with respect to grant of the 'consent to operate'. According to respondents 1 to 3 the disconnection was effected only on the basis of direction issued by the 5th respondent and there is no impediment in restoring the connection if the 5th respondent give instructions to that effect.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the additional 6th respondent contended that the plant in question is functioning without providing any adequate measures for treatment of effluents. Being an industry engaged in peeling of marine products, the activity involves generation of effluents, which is highly hazardous and toxic to the environment. It emanates foul smell in the locality putting W.P.(c) No.26688/2013 -3- life of the 6th respondent and his family members miserable. According to learned counsel for the 6th respondent, even after disconnection of supply the industry in question is running with the aid of a Diesel Generator, which is liable to be prevented.
4. From the facts and circumstances revealed as above, it is for the 5th respondent to take adequate measures and effective steps to see that the industry in question is not functioned in a manner causing pollution. It is for the said respondent to take a decision considering the detailed proposal if any submitted for establishment of the effluent treatment plant, as to whether 'consent to operate' need be given to the industry. Needless to observe that if the 5th respondent decide to issue the 'consent to operate', the said fact shall be intimated to the 4th respondent, and on such event the 4th respondent should take effective steps for restoration of supply, on the petitioner complying with the required formalities. It is also observed that if the petitioner continues operation of the industry in any manner violative W.P.(c) No.26688/2013 -4- of the relevant statute, it is left open to the 5th respondent to take effective steps for stoppage of such functioning.
5. In the circumstances as mentioned above, the writ petition is disposed of reserving liberty to the petitioner to approach the 5th respondent seeking grant of 'consent to operate' and also seeking directions to respondents 1 to 4 for restoration of electric supply. If any such approach is made the 5th respondent shall take a decision in accordance with the observations contained herein above.
Sd/-
C.K. ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE.
AMG True copy P.A to Judge