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 MR.JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM
THURSDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF MARCH 2012/25TH PHALGUNA 1933
WP(C).No. 33006 of 2011 (A)
----------------------------------------
PETITIONER:
-------------------
JOSE K.J, AGED 60 YEARS,
S/O.JOSEPH,KAVUKKATTU HOUSE,AYINAMPADAM,
NENMARA, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SRI.V.A.JOHNSON (VARIKKAPPALLIL).
RESPONDENTS:
------------------------
1. THE NENMARA GRAMA PANCHAYAT,
BY ITS SECRETARY, NENMARA P.O,PALAKKAD DISTRICT,
PIN- 678 508.
2. THE ENVIRONMENT ENGINEER,
DISTRICT OFFICE,KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD,
PALAKKAD DISTRIC, PIN- 670 661.
3. THE HEALTH INSPECTOR, NENMARA GRAMA
PANCHAYAT, NENMARA P.O, PALAKKAD DISTRICT,
PIN- 678 508.
4. PARAMESWARAN,S/O.SUBRAMANIAN,PROPRIETOR,
LAKSHMI INDUSTRIES,AYINAMPADAM,NENMARA,
PALAKKAD DISTRIC, PIN- 678 508.
R1 BY ADV. SRI.C.J.JOY,
R2 BY ADV. SRI. M.AJAY, S.C,
R4 BY ADVS. SRI.O.RAMACHANDRAN NAMBIAR,
ADV. SRI.GEEN T.MATHEW.
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 15-03-2012, ALONG WITH W.P.(C).NO. 1941/2012, THE COURT ON
THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C).NO.33006/2011-A:
APPENDIX
PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1: TRUE COPY OF THE MEDICAL CERTIFICATE DATED 30/9/2011 ISSUED BY
DR.N.V.VINOD WARRIER.
EXHIBIT P2: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C).NO. 15312/2008
DATED 23/5/2008 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT.
EXHIBIT P3: TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 19/6/2008 ISSUED BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P4: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 28/2/2011 PREFERRED
BEFORE THE IST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P5: TRUE COPY OF THE STOP MEMO DATED 10/6/2011 ISSUED BY THE IST
RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P6: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 15/10/2011 PREFERRED
BEFORE THE IST RESPONDENT.
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS & ANNEXURES:
EXT.R4.A: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.A3-3929/11-12 DTD. 26/11/2011
ISSUED BY THE R.1. TO THE R.2.
EXT.R4.B: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 22/12/2011 ISSUED TO THE R.1.
ANNEXURE R1: A TRUE COPY OF THE CONSENT NO.PCB/PLKD/IC/CO/F/204/2008
DTD. 24/12/08 VALID UP TO 29/2/12 VALID UPTO 30/11/2011.
ANNEXURE R2: A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.PCB/PLKD/IC/CO-422/2008 DTD.
21/03/09.
ANNEXURE R3: A TRUE COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE NO.PCB/PLKD/IC/CO-
422/2008 DTD. 11/04/11.
//TRUE COPY//
P.A. TO JUDGE.
Prv.
C.K. ABDUL REHIM, J.
-------------------------------------------------
W.P.(c) No. 33006 OF 2011-A
&
W.P.(c) No. 1941 OF 2012-P
-------------------------------------------------
DATED THIS THE 15th DAY OF MARCH, 2012
J U D G M E N T
W.P (c) No.1941/2012 is filed challenging Exts.P4 and P6 notices issued by the Secretary of the 1st respondent Panchayat directing stoppage of the functioning of a workshop owned by the petitioner, which is conducted in a building bearing No.2/111, situated within the limits of the 1st respondent panchayat. Averments are to the effect that, the industry was established as early as in the year 1987 on obtaining permission from the 1st respondent as per Ext.P1. The 4th respondent had purchased the property situated on the backside of the workshop compound, about 11 years back, and thereafter he had approached the petitioner for purchasing the property of the workshop also, with a view to have road frontage for his residential house. Since the W.P.(c) Nos.33006/2011 & 1941/2012 -2- petitioner had not yielded for such a demand, he started submitting vexatious complaints before various authorities. He had filed a civil suit against the petitioner seeking fixation of boundary and praying for consequential prohibitory injunction. But the suit was dismissed and the appeal filed by the 4th respondent is now pending. According to the petitioner, the 4th respondent is thereafter causing hindrance to the functioning of the workshop by making repeated complaints before respondents 1 to 3. On an earlier occasion the 2nd respondent had issued direction to the petitioner to take several measures to prevent the alleged noise pollution, against which the petitioner had approached this court in W.P (c) No.26162/2008. The said writ petition was disposed of directing the 1st respondent to permit the petitioner to function the workshop and to give time to comply with the conditions and measures suggested by the 2nd respondent. According to the petitioner all such measures were complied with and the 2nd respondent had issued consent, under the provisions of Air (Prevention and W.P.(c) Nos.33006/2011 & 1941/2012 -3- Control of Pollution) Act, 1981. But again on the basis of frivolous complaints submitted by the 4th respondent, the 2nd respondent had issued Ext.P2 notice on 11-04-2011. The petitioner had submitted a detailed reply to Ext.P2, before the 2nd respondent. In the meanwhile the 1st respondent had issued Ext.P4 notice directing stoppage of the workshop on the ground that 2nd respondent had issued Ext.P2. Inspite of detailed reply submitted under Ext.P5, the 1st respondent had issued further notice as per Ext.P6 directing abrupt stoppage of the workshop. Subsequently the 1st respondent had refused to renew the licence stating the reason that the petitioner should obtain renewal of consent from the 2nd respondent. According to the petitioner all the measures suggested by the 2nd respondent had already been complied with and the attitude of respondents 1 and 2 in not permitting the petitioner to function the workshop is totally malafide and is only due to the undue influence of the 4th respondent. Hence the petitioner is seeking to quash Exts.P4 and P6. Inter alia he is seeking directions against W.P.(c) Nos.33006/2011 & 1941/2012 -4- respondents 2 and 3 to take further steps on the basis of inspection to be conducted.
2. W.P (c) No.33006/2011 is filed by the 4th respondent in W.P (c) No.1941/2012. Grievance voiced is to the effect that, inspite of repeated notices issued by the 1st respondent panchayat directing stoppage of the workshop, illegal operation of the workshop is continued. Hence direction was sought for against respondents 1 to 3 to take effective measures to stop such illegal functioning.
3. From the materials available in both these cases it is evident that, with respect to the alleged nuisance and pollution, the authorities of the Pollution Control Board had conducted various inspections and suggested remedial measures. Admittedly the consent to operate issued was valid only upto 30-11-2011 and the same has not been renewed. According to the petitioner in W.P (c) No.1941/2012 the application for renewal of the consent was submitted within the time before the Pollution Control Board. In the statement of the Senior Environmental W.P.(c) Nos.33006/2011 & 1941/2012 -5- Engineer, State Pollution Control Board it is mentioned that, on the basis of complaint of the 4th respondent, an inspection was conducted as early on 12-06-2008. Since the measures taken were not seen adequate, the petitioner was directed to provide certain control measures, through the notice issued on 19-06-2008. Since such measures were not complied with the Board had refused to consent through the letter issued on 04-07-2008, and the Secretary of the 1st respondent panchayat was directed to cancel the licence issued, vide letter dated 23-07-2008. Thereafter the unit was inspected on 20-12-2008 and it was found that the measures have been provided by the petitioner. Accordingly consent to operate was issued to the unit on 24-12-2008 as per Ext.R1. But during the year 2009 another complaint was received and an inspection was conducted. Directions were issued on 21-03-2009 for strict compliance of the conditions stipulated in the consent. On the basis of further complaint received from the 4th respondent yet another inspection was conducted on 17-03-2009. During that inspection it was W.P.(c) Nos.33006/2011 & 1941/2012 -6- found that there exist a gap between wall and roof of the building and part of the works in the workshop is being conducted outside the unit. It was also noticed that about 40% of the false ceiling was seen removed. Hence a further show cause notice was issued on 11-04-2011 as per Ext.R3 (Ext.P2 in W.P (c) No.1941/2012). It is stated that even after Ext.P2, during an inspection conducted on 06-06-2011, it was found that the workers were cutting steel flats outside the unit. Therefore a further notice was issued on 18-01- 2012 directing to take full control measures.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P (c) No.1941/2012 submitted that, all the measures which will be suggested by the Pollution Control Board will be complied with immediately. It is complained that the last notice mentioned in the statement filed by the Pollution Control Board (notice dated 18-01-2012) has not been received by the petitioner. I take note of the fact that at present there is no valid consent granted by the Pollution Control Board and there is no valid licence granted by the W.P.(c) Nos.33006/2011 & 1941/2012 -7- 1st respondent grama panchayat. The petitioner is not entitled to conduct the workshop without renewal of the consent and licence. It is evident that the Pollution Control Board had refused renewal of licence on the premise that the petitioner has not fully complied with the remedial measures suggested. I am of the view that a direction to the petitioner in W.P (c) No.1941/2012 to comply with all the remedial measures and a further direction to the authorities of the Pollution Control Board to take a decision after conducting inspection, will suffice to meet the ends of justice. If the petitioner obtain renewal of consent, the panchayat can be directed to take decision on the question regarding renewal of licence in a time bound manner.
5. Under the above mentioned circumstances the writ petitions are disposed of directing the petitioner in W.P (c) No.1941/2012 to take effective steps to comply with all the measures suggested by the Pollution Control Board and to submit a report of such compliance to the 2nd respondent, at the earliest possible. The 2nd respondent will conduct an W.P.(c) Nos.33006/2011 & 1941/2012 -8- inspection at the site, on receipt of such report, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of such report. On the basis of such inspection the 2nd respondent shall take a decision on the question of renewal of consent to operate, without any further delay thereafter.
6. If the petitioner is granted renewal of the consent by the Pollution Control Board, he will be at liberty to produce the consent before the 1st respondent. On receipt of the renewal of consent, the competent authority in the 1st respondent shall consider the question regarding renewal of licence, after affording opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner as well as to the 4th respondent. A decision by the competent authority in the panchayat shall be taken without any delay, on the petitioner submitting the renewal of consent.
7. In order to facilitate the petitioner to comply with the measures suggested by the Pollution Control Board and to obtain renewal of the consent and the licence, implementation of Exts.P4 and P6 shall be kept in abeyance W.P.(c) Nos.33006/2011 & 1941/2012 -9- for a period of two months from today. However, it is made clear that the petitioner shall not continue functioning of the unit thereafter, unless he obtained renewal of the consent and the licence, as directed above.
Sd/-
C.K. ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE.
AMG True copy P.A to Judge