IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 2645 of 2009(S)


1. NABUM AGED 57,S/O.GOPALAN, ANCHALASSERY
                      ...  Petitioner
2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE,
3. R.D.O. FORT KOCHI.
4. THE DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER, ERNAKULAM.
5. THE SECRETARY, ELAMKUNNAPUZHA PANCHAYATH
6. M/S.AFCON INFRASTRUCTURE LTD.,RVNL,

                        Vs


1. THE KERALA STATE POLUTION CONTROL BOARD
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SMT.R.RANJINI

                For Respondent  :SRI.M.RAMESH CHANDER

The Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice MR.J.B.KOSHY
The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.GIRI

 Dated :19/02/2009

 O R D E R

J.B. Koshy,Ag.C.J. & V.Giri, J.

---------------------------------------- W.P.(C) Nos.2645 & 3266 of 2009

---------------------------------------- Dated this the 19th day of February, 2009 Judgment Koshy, Ag.C.J.

Writ Petition No.3266 of 2009 is filed by All Kerala Crusher Owners Association, Ernakulam District Committee contending that the crusher unit of the fifth respondent should be stopped and action should be taken against them under section 26 of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act (for short 'the Act'). The above petitioner has no authority to represent the inhabitants of the area and they are not affected by the alleged air pollution. They cannot say that since they have established crusher units spending large amount, no others can establish such units. It is also alleged that their unit is started without any authority of law. But, respondent produced orders passed under Single Window Clearance Scheme and they have got Ext.R5 (i) licence. Ext.R5(b) is the consent given by the Pollution Control Board. Exts.R5 (a) to (i) show that they obtained various permits and licences from the statutory authorities to start the crusher unit.  W.P.(C) Nos.2645 & 3266/2009 2

2. W.P.(C) No.2645 of 2009 is filed by a citizen who is stated to be a resident of Puthuvypin in Elankunnapuzha panchayat as a Public Interest Litigation. According to him, the licence was obtained stipulating conditions and there is violation of the provisions of the Act and conditions in the licence and the crusher unit is situated in the open area. It is not stated in the writ petition about the distance from the crusher unit and his residence. If the consent issued by the Pollution Control Board is against the provisions of the Act, a statutory appeal is provided and those who are aggrieved can file appeal before the statutory authorities. If any of the conditions of consent order are violated, the aggrieved parties can point out to the Senior Environmental Engineer of the Pollution Control Board so that remedial measures can be taken. The Pollution Control Board has got even power to stop operation of the unit and cancel the licence if conditions in the order of the Pollution Control Board are violated. It is stated that if licence is refused or if licence is granted illegally, aggrieved parties can file appeal. Apart from the appellate remedy, section 30 of the Act gives power to the State Board to interfere with the orders of the District Board suo motu and suo motu power can be exercised if any of the aggrieved parties bring to the attention of the State Board  W.P.(C) Nos.2645 & 3266/2009 3 about the irregularities and it is a revisional power. If any of the statutory conditions are violated, it is for the parties to approach the statutory authorities to stop the operation and in the wake of valid certificates produced, we are unable to interfere in the matter in a petition under article 226 of the Constitution of India. This judgment is pronounced without prejudice to the right of the parties in approaching the statutory authorities.

Both writ petitions are disposed of.

J.B.Koshy Acting Chief Justice V. Giri Judge vaa