IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 26106 of 2006(G)


1. SOMAN, AGED 46 YEARS,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE SECRETARY, GRAMA PANCHAYATH,
                       ...       Respondent

2. KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD,

3. THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY,

4. ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER,

5. NAGAMANI, SIBIN NIVAS,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.M.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR

                For Respondent  :SRI.JAMES KURIAN, SC,POLLUTION C.BOARD

The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE

 Dated :24/01/2007

 O R D E R
                                PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, J.

                                 -------------------------------

                              W.P.(C) No. 26106 OF 2006

                               -----------------------------------

                      Dated this the 24th day of January, 2007


                                        JUDGMENT

The Standing Counsel for the Pollution Control Board has filed a statement on 10.01.2007 pursuant to this Court's order dt.4.12.06. It is stated therein that the shed which was being used by the petitioner for storing hen's excreta was found demolished and that no excreta was found stored in the compound at the time of inspection. It is also stated that presently no facilities were seen provided in the unit for storing hen's excreta along with used deep litter. It is also stated that the petitioner's wife informed the officials of the Pollution Control Board that the deep litter containing hen's excreta will be removed and immediately sold directly from the poultry shed after selling all the hens.

I have heard the learned counsel who appear for the various parties including the Standing Counsel of the Pollution Control Board. Ext.P8 appeal has been preferred by the petitioner against the refusal of consent by the Pollution Control Board in the light of the facts stated in the statement dt.10.1.07. I find that the petitioner has made out a fairly strong case for the grant of the appeal. Under these circumstances, the continuances of proceedings before the Lok Ayukta will not be justified. Exts.P10 and P12 and all proceedings presently pending before the Lok  WPC No.26106/2006 2 Ayukta pursuant to complaint Ext.P9 are quashed. Ext.P12 issued by the Panchayat will also stand quashed. The appellate authority under the Air Prevention and Control of Pollution Act 1981(Act 14 of 1981) before whom Ext.P8 appeal is pending will implead the 5th respondent on an application filed by him as an additional party in Ext.P8 and dispose of Ext.P8 after hearing all the parties in accordance with law. The status quo obtaining as regards the conduct of chicken farm as obtaining to day will be permitted to continue till Ext.P8 is disposed of.

PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, JUDGE btt  WPC No.26106/2006 3