IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                  PRESENT

           THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS

    MONDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2020 / 5TH PHALGUNA, 1941

                          WP(C).No.5089 OF 2020(I)


PETITIONERS:

      1        NIJAMUDHIN
               S/O.AHAMMED SAHIB,
               THOTTATHIL HOUSE,
               KARAKKAD,
               VADAKKENCHERRY.

      2        ASSANAR,
               S/O.KHADAR MOIDEEN,
               THOTTATHIL HOUSE, KARAKKAD,
               VADAKKENCHERRY,
               PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

      3        ABDUL RASHEED,
               S/O.ABDUL RAHMAN,
               THENGIL HOUSE,
               KARAYAMKAD,
               VADAKKENCHERY.

      4        HAKKIN,
               S/O.GAFOOR,
               KARAYAMKAD HOUSE,
               VADAKKENCHERY,
               PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

               BY ADVS.

               SRI.P.R.VENKATESH
               SRI.G.KEERTHIVAS


RESPONDENTS:

      1        SENIOR ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER
               POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD,
               PALAKKAD-678 001.

      2        VADAKKENCHERRY GRAMA PANCHAYAT,
               REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
               VADAKKENCHERY,
               PALAKKAD DISTRICT-678 683.
 WP(C).No.5089 OF 2020(I)

                               2

      3      MODERN RICE MILLS,
             VADAKKENCHERRY
             REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER,
             MOHAMMED GHANI,
             S/O.B.M.SIDDIQ, PIN-678 683.

      4      DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER,
             PALAKKAD-678 001.


             BY ADVS.


             SRI.T.NAVEEN, SC FOR R1,
             SRI.K.J.MANU RAJ, GOVT.PLEADER FOR R4

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
24.02.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C).No.5089 OF 2020(I)

                                     3

                    ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.
               ===========================
                     W.P(C) No.5089 of 2020
                ===========================
                  Dated this the 24th day of February, 2020

                             JUDGMENT

The case set up in the Writ Petition (C) is as follows:- The petitioners are residents at Vadakkencherry, Palakkad. It is stated that the 3rd respondent is running a Rice Mill by name M/s. Jayabharath Modern Rice Mill, at Vadakkenchery close to the residential properties of the petitioners. The 3rd respondent is conducting the said mill in such a manner that is causing high amount of pollution by way of discharging of untreated effluents, causing serious health hazards to the people of the locality. The mill is also producing large amount of paddy dust. It is also emanating huge smoke and vapour resulting in spreading of pungent smell in the entire neighbourhood, besides the noise pollution. Some of the nearby residents like the petitioners approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No. 20046/2010 for a direction to respondents 1, 2 and 4 to take immediate action against the 3rd respondent, including revocation of the consent to operate and various other measures suggested in the direction to the 3rd respondent and to restrain the 3rd respondent from running the unit without ensuring compliance of the conditions stipulated in the consent to operate. Thereupon this Court WP(C).No.5089 OF 2020(I) 4 passed an interim order dated 31.1.2010 therein directing the 1 st respondent to inspect the premises and file a Report. That though report was received, the 3rd respondent is continuing the unit without complying with the requirements. This Court also in Ext P6 judgment dated 02.06.2017 very clearly observed that it is incumbent on the part of the 1st respondent to ensure that the 3rd respondent is continuing its operation only in terms of the explicit requirements contained under the Air (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act. However, still the 3 rd respondent unit is running in the same manner without complying with the requirements contained under the Air (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act. It is in the light of the above averments and contentions that the petitioners have filed this Writ Petition with following prayers:

"a) Writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the 1st respondent to immediately stop running of the respondent unit, Modern Rice Mills, Vadakkencherry forthwith; and

b) issue such other or further orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem just and fit in the circumstances of the case."

2. Heard Sri.P.R.Venkatesh, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri.T.Naveen, learned standing counsel for the Kerala State Pollution Control Board, appearing for R-1 and Sri. K.J. Manu Raj, learned Government Pleader appearing for R4 (District Medical Officer, Palakkad). In the nature of the order that is proposed to be passed in this petition, notice to R-2 and R-3 will stand dispensed with.

3. Taking note of the facts and circumstances of this case, it is WP(C).No.5089 OF 2020(I) 5 ordered that in case petitioners have any grievances regarding the functioning of the rice mill of the 3rd respondent, then it is for the petitioners to file detailed petition in that regard before the 1 st respondent Senior Environmental Engineer, Kerala State Pollution Control Board, Palakkad, without much delay within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. Copies of the Writ Petition will also be sent to the 2 nd respondent Vadakkenchery Grama Panchayat as well as to the 4 th respondent D.M.O. Palakkad and the 3rd respondent Modern Rice Mills, Vadakkenchery. Thereupon 2nd respondent and 4th respondent may conduct appropriate enquiries and may furnish their enquiry reports to the 1st respondent Kerala State Pollution Control Board and copy of the said report should also be given to the 1 st petitioner as well as the 3 rd respondent, in advance. This process should be duly completed by R2 and R4 within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. Thereafter the 2nd respondent should conduct inspection of the 3rd respondent's rice mill with due prior notice to the 3 rd respondent and may ascertain whether there are any defects to be rectified by the 3 rd respondent for abating pollution issues and if it is so found, notice should be issued by the 1st respondent to the 3rd respondent and after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the 3 rd respondent as well as the petitioners through their authorized representative or WP(C).No.5089 OF 2020(I) 6 counsel, if any, the 1st respondent will render a considered decision in the matter and if it is found that there are serious rectification issues, it should be undertaken by the 3rd respondent for abating pollution issues. Then reasonable time by two to three weeks may be granted to the 3 rd respondent for rectifying such defects. If the defects are still continuing, then the 1st respondent may pass appropriate orders in the matter and may consider whether statutory consent to operate the unit should be revoked or modified, etc. The entire process in that regard should be duly completed by the 1st respondent within six weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this judgment.

4. The Registry will forward the copies of the judgment to the 2nd respondent Panchayath and 3rd respondent for information, at the risk of the petitioners.

With above observations and directions, the above Writ Petition(c) stands finally disposed of.

Sd/-

ALEXANDER THOMAS SCS JUDGE WP(C).No.5089 OF 2020(I) 7 APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 31.01.2020 IN WPC NO.20046/1010 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF REPORT SUBMITTED BEFORE THIS HON'BLE COURT DATED 12.07.2020 BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE CLOSURE NOTICE DATED 30.04.2010.

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF REPORT DATED 29.01.2011 WAS ALSO SUBMITTED BY THE ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER.

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF NOTICE DATED 18.03.2010 ISSUED EARLIER BY THE ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER.

 EXHIBIT P6           TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
                      02.06.2017 IN WPC NO.20046/2010 OF THIS
                      HON'BLE COURT.

 EXHIBIT P7           TRUE COPY OF REPLY DATED 09.01.2020
                      RECEIVED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER RECEIVED.

 EXHIBIT P8           TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 19.11.2019
                      RECEIVED BY THE 3RD PETITIONER FROM
                      VADAKKENCHERRY GRAMA PANCHAYATH.

 EXHIBIT P9           COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 19.11.2019
                      ADDRESSED BY THE PANCHAYAT TO THE 1ST
                      RESPONDENT.
 //TRUE COPY//
 PA TO JUDGE