IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                          PRESENT

                    THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR

                                             &

                          THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

               WEDNESDAY, THE 05TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2020 / 16TH MAGHA, 1941

                                     WA.No.211 OF 2020

      AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 34876/2019(H) OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA


APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS:

        1         SUDHEER HAMEED
                  AGED 48 YEARS
                  S/O HAMEED, SAFEER MANZIL, NEERKUNNAM, TDMC P.O.,
                  ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN-688 005.

        2         HARITHAM RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION,
                  REP BY SECRETARY, K.D.SADIK, S.N. KAVALA, VANDDANAM,
                  ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT-688 005.

                  BY ADVS.
                  SRI.S.KRISHNAMOORTHY
                  SHRI.JESUDASAN K X
                  SMT.NITHYA SUGUNAN

RESPONDENTS:

        1         DISTRICT COLLECTOR
                  ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT-688 001.

        2         THE AMBALAPPUZHA (NORTH) GRAMA PANCHAYAT,
                  NEERKUNNAM, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT-688 005, REP BY ITS SECRETARY

        3         KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD,
                  DISTRICT OFFICE, THONDANKULANGARA, THATHAMPALLY P.O.,
                  ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT-688 013, REP BY ITS SECRETARY

        4         THE DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER,
                  ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, ALAPPUZHA P.O.,
                  ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT-688 001.

        5         SHUKOOR,
                  KARUKATHARRA, VANDANAM P.O., ALAPPUZHA-688 005.

                  R2 BY ADV. SRI.BRIJESH MOHAN
                  R2 BY ADV. SRI.R.RAJPRADEEP


                  SR. GP SRI.TEK CHAND FOR R1 AND R4,
                  SRI.T.NAVEEN, SC FOR R3,
                  SRI.M.AJAY FOR R5,

      THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05.02.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME
DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WA.No.211 OF 2020                             2




                                JUDGMENT

Petitioners jointly filed W.P.(C) No.34876/2019 dated 13.1.2020 with the following prayers:

I)To issue a writ of Mandamus or other appropriate writ order or direction directing the 2nd and 3d respondents not to grant any license in favour of 5th respondent to start meat collection centre as described in Exhibit P5(a) Sketch.

II) To issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ order or direction directing the 2nd and 3rd respondent to issue such direction after following the procedure if any to stop such activity of causing nuisance/pollution in conducting a meat collection centre mention in Exhibit P5(a) sketch by the 5th respondent.

III) To issue a Writ of mandamus or other appropriate Writ, order or direction directing the 1st respondent to take steps in Exhibit P1 representation.

IV)To issue such other reliefs as this Hon'ble Court may deem just and proper in the circumstances of the case.

2. After hearing learned counsel for parties, writ court passed the following order:

"5. Without considering the merit and demerit of the matter, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 2nd and 3 respondents to consider the representation of the petitioners referred above, in accordance with law, after affording an opportunity to them, of being heard. Since the counsel for the 5 th respondent has already undertaken not to carry out any activity as stated in the order cited above, at this stage, he has pointed out that Pollution Control Board has come out with on-line registration of the industry. He has submitted application WA.No.211 OF 2020 3 dated 09.11.2019 categorising his unit as orange for fish processing and packing. However no such category is available on-line. But in fact his activity is fish processing and collection and therefore he had no option but to apply under on line. He further submits that he may be permitted to apply manually owing to the unavailability of other option. The afore-mentioned request of the petitioner appears to be fair and genuine. Accordingly, the directions of Pollution Control Board to consider the request submitted by the petitioner manually for prawn collection instead of fish processing. It is upto the Pollution Control Board to decide whether the case of the petitioner falls under prawn collection or fish processing.

Writ petition stands disposed of as above."

3. Though Mr.S.Krishnamoorthy, learned counsel for appellants sought for reversal of the judgment in W.P.(C) No.34876/2019 dated 13.1.2020 on the basis of the grounds raised, which were refuted by Mr.M.Ajay, learned counsel for respondent No.5, ultimately sought permission of this Court to withdraw the writ petition.

4. When attention of the learned counsel for appellants was invited to the directions of the writ court permitting the respondent No.7/5 th respondent herein, to make a manual application, to be considered by the Kerala State Pollution Control Board, Alappuzha, respondent No.3., Mr.S.Krishnamoorthy, learned counsel for appellants submitted that he has no objection for the application submitted manually by the 5 th respondent, be considered by the Kerala State Pollution Control Board, Alappuzha.

5. Submission of the learned counsel for appellants is placed on WA.No.211 OF 2020 4 record. Mr.Naveen.T, learned standing counsel for the Pollution Control Board submitted that, the application submitted by respondent No.5 manually, would be considered in accordance with law. Mr.M.Ajay, learned counsel for respondent No.5 submitted that Central Pollution Control Board, New Delhi, has issued modified directions under section 18(1)(b) of the Water (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and the Air (Prevention & Contrl of Pollution) Act, 1981 and sent communications to all the Chair Persons/State Pollution Control Boards/Pollution Control Committees. He further submitted that, Pollution Control Board may be directed to take note of the above said modified directions issued.

6. Though the learned counsel for appellants seeks for a prayer to withdraw the instant appeal, he has conceded that the application submitted by the 5th respondent manually be considered.

7. In view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that, there is no impediment for the Kerala State Pollution Control Board to consider the said application. While doing so, Pollution Control Board is directed to take note of all the existing guidelines/modified directions issued by the Central Pollution Control Board, wherever applicable. WA.No.211 OF 2020 5

8. Submissions were also made that, the Ambalappuzha (North) Grama Panchayat, Neerkunnam, Alappuzha District, respondent No.2, has heard both parties on the representation submitted by the appellants relating to licence.

Placing on record the submissions, writ appeal is dismissed, granting liberty of the appellants to approach the appropriate forum, if aggrieved and advised so.

Sd/-

S.MANIKUMAR CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/-

                                                 SHAJI P.CHALY

smv                                                  JUDGE