Main Search Premium Members Advanced Search Disclaimer
Cites 4 docs
The Air Force Act, 1950
Section 32 in THE AIR (PREVENTION AND CONTROL OF POLLUTION) ACT, 1981
Section 32 in The Air Force Act, 1950
THE AIR (PREVENTION AND CONTROL OF POLLUTION) ACT, 1981

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.

Kerala High Court
Green Valley Condinents vs The Environmental Engineer on 22 July, 2011
        

 
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                PRESENT:

              THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN

          TUESDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF JUNE 2016/7TH ASHADHA, 1938

                      WP(C).No. 15391 of 2016 (Y)
                      ----------------------------


PETITIONER(S):
-------------

            GREEN VALLEY CONDINENTS
            ATTUPURAM, AYOOR.P.O., PIN-683 579,
            ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR
            C.O.JOSE.


            BY ADV. SRI.K.G.ANIL BABU

RESPONDENT(S):
--------------

          1. THE ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER
            KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD,
            ENVIRONMENTAL SURVIALANCE CENTRE, ELOOR,
            UDYOGAMANDAL.P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT,
            PIN-683 501.

          2. SRI. N.V.VINAYAKAN
            NEELAMPATTUPARAMBIL, ATTUPURAM, AYOOR.P.O.,
            PIN-683 579, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

          3. THE SECRETARY
            KUNNUKARA GRAMA PANCHAYAT, KUNNUKARA.P.O.,
            PIN-683 579, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

          4. THE KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
            THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
            REPRESENTED BY ITS MEMBER SECRETARY.


            R2  BY ADV. SRI.P.V.JAYACHANDRAN
            R2  BY ADV. SRI.S.SUDHEESHKAR
            R2  BY ADV. SRI.E.B.SHIVANANDAN
            R2  BY ADV. SRI.NIDHI BALACHANDRAN
            R3  BY ADV. SRI.S.SHANAVAS KHAN
            R BY SRI. M.AJAY, SC, KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BO

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL)  HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD  ON  28-06-2016,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WP(C).No. 15391 of 2016 (Y)
----------------------------

                                APPENDIX

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
-----------------------
P1             THE TRUE COPY OF THE CONSENT TO OPERATE THE UNIT ISSUED
              BY THE STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, DATED 22.7.2011.

P2             THE TRUE COPY OF THE CONSENT TO OPERATE THE UNIT ISSUED
              BY THE STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD DATED 19.4.2013.

P3             THE TRUE COPY OF THE CONSENT VARIATION ORDER DATED
              23.02.2015.

P4             THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE PANCHAYAT SECRETARY
              DATED 12.4.2011.

P5             THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL
              OFFICER DATED 24.8.2012.

P6             THE TRUE COPY OF THE RENEWED CONSENT  DATED 5.4.16.

P7             THE COPY OF THE APPEAL DATED 12.4.2016 SUBMITTED BY THE
              PETITIONER BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT.

P8             THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT ISSUED
              TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 5.4.16.

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:           NIL
-----------------------

                            // TRUE COPY //


                              P.A TO JUDGE


SB



                   K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.
               =====================
                W.P.(C) No.15391 of 2016 - Y
               ======================
             Dated this the 28th day of June, 2016

                        J U D G M E N T

The petitioner is concerned with Ext.P7 revision filed before the 4th respondent Board. The revision is dated 20.04.2016 under Section 32 of the Air (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act (for brevity 'the Air Act), 1981. Though Ext.P7 itself is styled as an appeal, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that it is actually a revision that is maintainable under Section 32 of the Air Act.

2. In such circumstance, considering the confined prayer made, the revision has to be considered by the 4th respondent Board, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the judgment and after 2 W.P.(C) No.15391 of 2016 - Y hearing the petitioner and the respondents 2 and 3. It is made clear that this Court has not made any observations on merits, which the 4th respondent will consider, in accordance with law.

Sd/-

K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE SB/28/06/2016 // true copy // P.A to Judge.