IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 941 of 2008(K)


1.  AHAMMAD KABEER. S/O.ABOOBAKCER KUNHU,
                      ...  Petitioner
2. HAMSA,S/O. BASHEERKUTTY, POOVAN VILA
3. ABDUL SALIM,S/O. SAINULLABDEEN,

                        Vs



1. M/S. ENGLISH INDIAN (EICL) T.C.79/34
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL

3. THE KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

4. THE ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER

5. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOLLAM

6. NEDUMPANA GRAMA PANCHAYAT,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.P.CHANDRASEKHAR

                For Respondent  :SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR

The Hon'ble MR. Justice T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR

 Dated :31/08/2010

 O R D E R
                   T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR,J.
                     -------------------------------------
                       W.P.(C)No.941 Of 2008
               -----------------------------------------------------
         DATED THIS THE 31st DAY OF AUGUST, 2010

                                 JUDGMENT

In this Writ Petition, the petitioners who are residents of Vilichikala within Nedumpana Grama Panchayat is aggrieved by the pollution caused by the industry run by the 1st respondent. It is pointed out that quarrying of clay is done by the 1st respondent.

2. Mainly, it is pointed out that the 1st respondent has violated the provisions of Environmental Protection Act, Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution)Act and Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution)Act and respondents 2 to 6 are not taking any effective steps in the matter.

3. Initially, this Court had passed an interim order which was modified as per order dated 17.1.2008 in I.A.No.858/08. It was clarified that they can operate the clay manufacturing unit with the licence of the Panchayat and it was clarified that the order will not stand in the way of the Pollution Control Board taking appropriate decision pursuant to Exhibit P14.

4. Exhibit P14 produced along with the Writ Petition is a provisional notice issued by the Pollution Control Board alleging  W.P.(C)No.941/08 -2- various omissions on the part of the 1st respondent.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in spite of passage of time and issuance of fresh directions by the Pollution Control Board, even now the Company has not installed any Effluent Treatment Plant, which is denied by the learned counsel appearing for the Company.

6. The 1st respondent has filed a counter affidavit as well as an additional counter affidavit. Various measures taken by them in compliance with the directions issued by the Pollution Control Board have been detailed in the counter affidavit.

7. The learned Standing Counsel for the Pollution Control Board invited my attention to Exhibits R4(d) and R4(e) proceedings. The counter affidavit filed by the Pollution Control Board shows that the 1st respondent has taken over the business of the Company M/s Wolkem Clay Pvt. Ltd. Initially, consent to operate was issued to the said Company, which was renewed under the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act with validity upto 31.12.2007 and under the Air(Prevention and Control of Pollution)Act with validity upto 31.12.2008. On inspection, it was found that the unit has not complied with the  W.P.(C)No.941/08 -3- directions issued by the Pollution Control Board. Exhibit R4(a) notice was issued and later an inspection was conducted on 8.1.2008 and based on the result of the inspection additional control measures were directed as per Exhibit R4(b). It is pointed out that the Unit was again inspected on 25.3.2008 and found that the unit is on the way of complying with the directions of the Pollution Control Board under Exhibit R4(b). For some period, it was under lock out and the inspection conducted on 12.3.2010 shows that unit has complied with most of the conditions directed in Exhibit R4(b), but augmentation of effluent treatment plant including facility for safe storage and recycle of treated effluent, one of the additional control measures suggested is yet to be done.

8. In the additional counter affidavit, it is mentioned that the consent is renewed upto 30.6.2012 and further direction was issued to comply with certain conditions.

9. Evidently, the Pollution Control Board has been conducting various inspections and they have been issuing various directions to the Company to comply with certain conditions. It is not as if the Company has not complied with any  W.P.(C)No.941/08 -4- of the conditions. Evidently, the consent to operate is valid upto 30.6.2012. Therefore, what remains is to find out whether the directions issued by the Pollution Control Board have been fully complied with by the Company. Since there is a dispute raised by the petitioner that the directions are not at all being complied with, it is only proper that the Pollution Control Board is directed to conduct an inspection with notice to the petitioner and the Company and find out whether all the directions issued by the Pollution Control Board have been complied with. They can suggest further measures, if any, to ward off the alleged pollution caused by the Unit. The same shall be done within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

10. The further complaint of the petitioner is regarding the alleged encroachment. It is upto the petitioner to prosecute the same before the statutory authorities concerned.

The Writ Petition is disposed of as above.

T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE.

dsn