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 KERALAAT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN
FRIDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF NOVEMBER 2014/30TH KARTHIKA, 1936
WP(C).No. 29461 of 2014 (G)
----------------------------
PETITIONERS :
--------------------------
1. JOSEPH P.V. AGED 63 YEARS
S/O.VARGHESE, PALAKKATHARA HOUSE, PALANCHERIMUGHAL
EDATHALA POST, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.
2. NEELAKANTAN KARTHAAGED 74 YEARS
S/O.NARAYANAN KARTHA, KALATHIL VRINDAVANAM
PALANCHERYMUGHAL, EDATHALA POST, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SRI.SHERRYJ. THOMAS
RESPONDENTS :
----------------------------
1. EDATDHALA GRAMA PANCHAYATH
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, EDATHALA (N) PO
EDATHALA-683561.
2. PRESIDENT
EDATHALA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, EDATHALA (N) PO
EDATHALA-683561.
3. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF HEALTH SERVICES
DISTRICT HOSPITAL COMPLEX, ERNAKULAM.
4. ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER
KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT OFFICE-I, GANDHINAGAR-682020.
5. SHAJI MARAKKAR, AGE ABOUT 35
KURIAPPILLIL HOUSE, EDAPPALLYPO, KOCHI-682024.
R1-R2 BY ADV. SRI.ANIL K.MOHAMMED
R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.G.GOAPKUMAR
R4 BY SRI. M.AJAY, SC, KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BO
R5 BY ADV.SRI.G.GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR (EDAPPALLY)
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21-11-2014,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No. 29461 of 2014 (G)
----------------------------
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
-------------------------------------
EXHIBIT-P1: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC 29021/2013 DATED 2.4.2014.
EXHIBIT-P2: TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT
IN WPC 29021/2013 [WITHOUT DOCUMENTS R3(I) AND R3(J)].
EXHIBIT-P3: THE TRUE COPY OF THE SKETCH SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS
BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT-P4: THE PHOTOGRAPH OF THE ENTRANCE ROAD TO THE AREA IN WHICH THE
INDUSTRY IS PROPOSED.
EXHIBIT-P5: THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 7.7.2014 SUBMITTED BY THE
PANCHAYATH MEMBER TO THE PANCHAYATH COMMITTEE.
EXHIBIT-P6: THE TRUE COPY OF FORWARDED NOTES IN THE LETTER DATED7.7.2014
SUBMITTED BY THE PANCHAYATH MEMBER TO THE PANCHAYATH COMMITTEE.
EXHIBIT-P7: THE TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION SUBMITTED BY THE FIRST PETITIONER
DT.13.6.2014.
EXHIBIT-P8:THE TRUE COPY MINUTES OF THE MEETING DATED 13.8.2014 OF THE 1ST
RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT-P9: THE TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 4.9.2014 ORDER ISSUED BY
1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT-P10: THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL PREFERRED BEFORE THE AIR APPELLATE
TRIBUNAL.
EXHIBIT-P11: THE TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED14.3.13 SUBMITTED BY THE
PETITIONER BEFORE THE DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER.
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS
---------------------------------------
EXT.R5(a) : COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR PERMIT DATED 26.11.2012
EXT.R5(b) : COPY OF THE CONSENT ISSUED BY THE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
DATED 1.2.2013
EXT.R5(c) : COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT INDUSTRIES
MANAGER DATED 26.3.2013
EXT.R5(d) : COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 7.1.2013 ISSUED BY THE ASSISTANT
EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, LINE MAINTENANCE SUB DIVISION, KALAMASSERY
EXT.R5(e) : COPY OF THE SANCTION ORDER NO.T6-467/13/EIE DATED 28.1.2013 ISSUED
BY THE ELECTRICAL INSPECTOR, ERNAKULAM
EXT.R5(f) : COPY OF THE NO OBJECTION DATED 18.3.2013 ISSUED BY THANKAPPAN M.V
AND PRAKASHAN M.V., MANKUZHY HOUSE, PALANCHERRYMUGHAL.
WP(C).No. 29461 of 2014 (G)
----------------------------
EXT.R5(g) : COPY OF THE NO OBJECTION CERTIFICATE DATED 28.1.2013 ISSUED BY THE
ASSITANT DIVISIONAL OFFICE, FIRE AND RESCUE SERVICES, ERNAKULAM
EXT.R5(h) : COPY OF THE SANCTION ORDER DATED 4.9.2014 ISSUED BY THE 1ST
RESPONDENT
EXT.R5(i) : COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT DATED 15.10.2014 ISSUED BY THE 1ST
RESPONDENT
EXT.R5(j) : COPY OF THE APPROVED PLAN ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT
EXT.R5(k) : COPY OF THE APPROVED PLAN ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT
EXT.R5(l) : COPY OF LETTER DATED 18.2.2014 ISSUED BY THE SENIOR TOWN PLANNER,
ERNAKULAM
EXT.R5(m) : COPY OF THE MINUTES DATED 21.11.2013 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT
/TRUE COPY/
P.A TO JUDGE
AV
K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J.
------------------------------------
W.P.(C) No.29461 of 2014
-----------------------------------
Dated this the 21st day of November, 2014
J U D G M E N T
The petitioners have filed this writ petition challenging Ext.P9 order passed by the 1st respondent granting a licence under Section 233 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act to establish an industrial unit. The petitioners are persons who claim to be residents of the locality. According to them, the industry that is proposed, would be a source of nuisance. Therefore, they have sought for setting aside Ext.P9. A counter affidavit has been filed by the 5th respondent producing Exts.R5(a) and R5(m) documents. Adv.Sri.M.Ajay appears for the 4th respondent. Adv.Sri.Anil K Mohammed appears for respondents 1 and
2. The learned Government Pleader appears for the 3rd respondent.
2. According to the counsel for the petitioners, the consent to establish has been granted to the 5th respondent by the 4th respondent relying on a sketch that has been marked as Ext.R3(h) in Ext.P2. The said sketch according to the counsel, is erroneous since it does not show any of the residential houses that are actually located within the prohibited distance of the proposed unit. According to the counsel, it is necessary that an Advocate Commissioner is deputed from this Court to ascertain and report the said facts to this Court.
3. Adv.Sri.G.Gopalakrishnan Nair who appears for the 5th respondent on the other hand points out that, Ext.P9 is an order W.P.(C) No.29461 of 2014 2 against which the petitioners have a statutory remedy by way of appeal to the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions, Thiruvananthapuram. Against the consent granted by the 4th respondent also, the petitioner has preferred Ext.P10 appeal which is pending before the appellate authority under the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981. In view of the above, it is contended that the petitioner is not entitled to any of the reliefs sought for in this writ petition.
Having heard the counsel appearing for the respective parties, I am not satisfied that any interference with Ext.P9 is called for, at this stage. The remedy of the petitioner against Ext.P9 is by way of an appeal, provided by the statute to the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions, Thiruvananthapuram. It shall therefore be open to the petitioner to invoke the said remedy against Ext.P9. Against the consent that has been issued by the 4th respondent to the 5th respondent, the petitioner has already invoked his statutory remedy and Ext.P10 appeal is pending before the appellate authority. Therefore, it is for the petitioner to pursue the said appeal for necessary reliefs. The above being the position, I am not satisfied that the petitioner is entitled to any of the reliefs sought for.
This writ petition is therefore, dismissed.
Sd/-
K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE.
AV