IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 3454 of 2009(J)


1. K.P. ANILKUMAR,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE MEMEBER SECRETARY,KERALA STATE

3. THE CHIEF ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER,

4. THE SECRETARY, ALANGADU GRAMA

5. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,

6. THE AIR (PREVENTION AND CONTROL OF

                For Petitioner  :SMT.SUMATHY DANDAPANI (SR.)

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC

 Dated :03/02/2009

 O R D E R
                             ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
                            ==============
                       W.P.(C) NO. 3454 OF 2009 (J)
                      ====================

                 Dated this the 3rd day of February, 2009

                                J U D G M E N T

Petitioner is the Managing Partner of a Dairy Farm. According to the petitioner, although he has all the licences, going by the averments in para 2 of the writ petition itself, the consent issued by the Pollution Control Board was valid only upto 2005. It is stated that since then there has been various inspections and on two occasions, the petitioner also has approached this Court.

2. As at present, the position is that, following the hearing that was conducted pursuant to Ext.P7 judgment, the Board issued Ext.P11, a direction under Section 33 A of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 requiring the petitioner to close the factory. Aggrieved by Ext.P11, petitioner filed Ext.P12 appeal before the 6th respondent and the said appeal is pending, but however, without any interim orders.

3. In the meantime, records show that there were certain complaints and Ext.P15 shows that there has been a further inspection on 22/1/2009. Noticing that, despite having no consent issued by the Board and ignoring Ext.P11, the unit was functioning, the Board issued Ext.P15, direction under Section 33A of the Act, requiring the 5th respondent to  WPC 3454/09 :2 : disconnect the supply of electricity to the Dairy Farm.

4. Counsel submits that Ext.P12 appeal filed against Ext.P11, is scheduled to be heard by the 6th respondent on 5/2/2009 and that in the meanwhile, status quo as regards supply of power should be maintained.

5. In so far as the continuance of power supply is concerned, the disconnection is ordered by Ext.P15 and the validity of Ext.P15 has to be judged on the facts as stated in Ext.P15 itself. It is seen from the said order that the unit was ordered to be closed by Ext.P11 dated 18/12/2008. Subsequently, an inspection was conducted on 22/1/2009 and the unit was found to be functioning. It was in these circumstances the said direction has been issued. Admittedly, the unit does not have a consent issued in its favour since 2006. The functioning of the unit is also admitted by the petitioner and the details of the transaction as seen from Ext.P14 also supports this conclusion.

6. Resultantly, it can be seen that since 2006, the unit has been functioning without consent and that despite Ext.P11 order of closure issued on 18/12/2008, unit continued to function even on 22/1/2009, when the inspection was conducted. If that be so, Ext.P15 order cannot be faulted.

7. However, having regard to the fact that Ext.P12 appeal filed by  WPC 3454/09 :3 : the petitioner against Ext.P11 order is pending and that the mater is now scheduled to be heard on 5/2/2009, I direct the 6th respondent to hear the appeal and dispose of the matter without any delay.

Writ petition is disposed of as above.

ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp