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 THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR.HRISHIKESH ROY
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
TUESDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF JULY 2018 / 19TH ASHADHA, 1940
WA.No. 1256 of 2017 IN WPC. 8619/2008
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 8619/2008 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA
DATED 20-03-2017
APPELLANT(S)/ADDITIONAL 6TH RESPONDENT IN WPC NO.8649/2008
SMT.P.THANKAKUTTY
W/O.LATE SUDHAKARAN,
CHARUVILA, PUTHEN VEEDU,
UCHAKKADA, PAYATTUVILA P.O.,
NEYYATTINKARA TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT
695 501.
BY ADVS.SRI.VADAKARA V.V.N.MENON
SRI.N.S.GOPAKUMAR
RESPONDENT(S)/WRIT PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS NOS1,2,4,5&7 IN WPC:
1. K.SUGATHA KUMARI
W/O.RAVEENDRAN, KANJIRAM NINNA RAVIL BHAVAN,, CHOWARA,
KOTTUKAL VILLAGE, NEYYATTINKARA TALUK,,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.
2. THE AIR APPELLATE AUTHORITY
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, POOJAPPURA, REP. BY ITS, SECRETARY
3. THE DISTRICT ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER,
KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD,TC.NO.9/1858,,
KOCHAR ROAD, SASTHAMANGALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 004.
4. KERALA STATE POLLUTION BOARD
REPRESENTED BY ITS MEMBER SECRETARY,
PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 004.
5. KOTTUKAL GRAMA PANCHAYAT,
KOTTUKAL P.O., NEYYATTINKARA TALUK,,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY 695 501.
WA.1256/17
2
6. SRI.PRABHAKARAN
S/O.KRISHNAN NADAR, CHARUVILA PUTHEN VEEDU,
UCHAKKADA, PAYATTUVILA P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, 695 001.
R1 BY ADV. SRI.V.G.ARUN (K/795/2004)
R1 BY ADV. SRI.K.R.SYAM SEKHAR
R1 BY ADV. SMT.V.JAYA RAGI
R1 BY ADV. SMT.INDULEKHA JOSEPH
R1 BY ADV. SRI.NEERAJ NARAYAN
R BY SRI.MANZOOR ALI
R BY SRI.R.T.PRADEEP
R3,4 BY ADV. SRI. T.NAVEEN SC, KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD,
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10-07-2018,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
HRISHIKESH ROY, Ag C.J.
&
A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, J.
------------------------------------------------------
W.A.No.1256 of 2017
------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 10th day of July, 2018
JUDGMENT
Hrishikesh Roy, Ag C.J.
1. The 6th respondent in the writ petition, Smt.P.Thankakutty, has filed this appeal to challenge the judgment dated 20.3.2017 in the W.P(C).8619/08. She is the wife of K.Sudhakaran, the third respondent in the writ petition, who was the proprietor of a flour mill by the name 'Dhanya Floor Mill' at Chowara, Neyyattinkara Taluk. In the writ petition, the challenge is against Ext.P6 order of the Air Appellate Authority, Thiruvananthapuram, where the licensee was in appeal. That appeal was filed under Section 31 of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 , to challenge the Ext.P3 order dated 30.6.2004 of the Kerala State Pollution Control Board, because the consent to operate the mill was denied.
2. The appellate authority, under the Ext.P6 order, considered the circumstances of the case, but was unable to reach a definite conclusion on the correctness of the negative decision. Thus, the impugned order was set aside and the matter was remitted back to the Pollution Control Board for fresh disposal, after due inspection with notice to the licensee K.Sudhakaran, the third respondent in the writ petition.
WA.1256/17 2
3. Aggrieved by the Ext.P6 decision of the Air Appellate Authority, one K.Sugatha Kumari, residing within the neighbourhood of the flour mill, filed the writ proceeding and it came to light during the said proceeding that the licensee K.Sudhakaran had expired. The learned Judge accordingly said that since the licensee had expired, the licence for the flour mill cannot inure to the benefit of anyone else, including his wife. Thus it was observed that if the wife intends to operate the flour mill, she cannot do so on the strength of Ext.P6 order, but will have to apply fresh and obtain licence in her own name as the flour mill was being operated exclusively in the name of the third respondent, until he died. With such observation, the writ petition was closed, granting liberty to the aggrieved party to pursue her remedies in the writ proceeding.
4. Representing the appellant/6th respondent, Sri.V.V.N.Menon, the learned counsel, submits that when the licensee dies, it is normal for the authorities to issue licence to the successor in order to enable the family to carry on the business. In this context, Sri.T.Naveen, the learned counsel for the PCB, submits that the wife has to apply online for consent of the PCB, but the same is not yet done.
5. Reacting to the above projection from the PCB counsel, Sri.V.V.N.Menon, on behalf of the appellant as the wife of the original licensee, submits that his client will now apply online for the consent of the PCB and he prays for a direction that her application be considered on merits by the authority. WA.1256/17 3
6. Having considered the above, direction is issued to the PCB to take a decision on merit, after hearing not only the applicant but also the objector, the writ petitioner. Except to this limited extent, we do not interfere with the impugned judgment of the learned single Judge. The writ appeal is thus disposed of accordingly.
7. The Registry should post W.P(C).3638/17, before the appropriate Bench as per roster.
Sd/-
HRISHIKESH ROY ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/-
A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE kkb.