Cites 3 docs
THE AIR (PREVENTION AND CONTROL OF POLLUTION) ACT, 1981
Section 28 in The Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974
The Information Technology Act, 2000

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
Shiji Sebastian vs The Kerala State Pollution ... on 24 January, 2020
               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                  PRESENT

                THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL

      FRIDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF JANUARY 2020 / 4TH MAGHA, 1941

                       WP(C).No.1532 OF 2020(N)


PETITIONER:

               SHIJI SEBASTIAN
               AGED 46 YEARS
               S/O.SEBASTIAN,
               RESIDING AT KOZHIKOTT HOUSE,
               KADANADU, PALA,
               KOTTAYAM, PIN-686653.

               BY ADVS.
               SRI.ANEESH JAMES
               SRI.JIJO THOMAS
               SMT.M.D.BEENA

RESPONDENTS:

      1        THE KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
               REPRESENTED BY THE ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER,
               KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD,
               DISTRICT OFFICE,
               ERNAKULAM II,
               PERUMBAVOOR,
               1ST FLOOR,
               MANNA RESIDENCY,
               MC ROAD,
               PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM.

      2        JAYAN.C.K,
               AGE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER,
               S/O BARGAVI KRISHNAN,
               BUILDING NO.X/973,
               CHELLAMBEL PEEDIKAYIL,
               KOOTHATTUKULAM.P.O,
               KOOTHATTUKULAM,
               ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-686662.

      3        BARGAVI KRISHNAN,
               AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER,
               BUILDING NO.X/973,
               CHELLAMBEL PEEDIYAKIL,
               KOOTHATTUKULAM.P.O,
               KOOTHATTUKULAM,
               ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-686662.
 WP(C).No.1532 OF 2020(N)

                             2


      4     THE WATER (PREVENTION AND CONTROL OF POLLUTION)
            APPELLATE AUTHORITY,
            KSRTC BUS TERMINAL, THAMPANOOR,
            THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695014,
            REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN.



            SRI GP RAJASEKHARAN NAIR
            SRI. T.NAVEEN SC

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 24.01.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
 WP(C).No.1532 OF 2020(N)

                                3

                             JUDGMENT

The petitioner in this present writ petition, has approached this Court seeking ventilation of his grievance against the order of the Pollution Control Board. An appeal preferred under Section 28 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 is stated to be pending before the Appellate Authority established under the Act.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is conducting chicken stall under the name and style "K.K. Chicken Centre" in the shop bearing No.X/972 of Koothattukulam Municipality. The aforementioned shop is owned by his wife by virtue of this writ petition. For running the afore mentioned business, he had already obtained Trade Licence from the Municipality, which was valid upto 31.03.2020 and the licence fee has already been paid. The petitioner submitted an application to the 1st respondent ie. Pollution Control Board for consent to operate the chicken stall as it is not situated in a residential area. The 1st respondent inspected the site and on being satisfied that the petitioners' stall satisfies the distance WP(C).No.1532 OF 2020(N) 4 criteria, issued consent to operate dated 12.07.2019 (Ext.P3). The 3Rd respondent is the owner of the shop and nursing rancour against the petitioner, submitted a complaint to the Pollution Control Board and was astounded to receive the revocation of the intention notice dated 25.09.2019. The petitioner submitted an application before the Secretary of the Municipality under the Right to Information Act, enquiring as to the nature of the occupancy of the building door nos.X/950 to X/990, whether the building is in the immediate vicinity of the shop room of the petitioner, where the buildings of the respondent nos.2 and 3 are located. Public Information Officer issued reply dated 12.11.2019 (Ext.P4) stating that the building bearing door numbers aforementioned falls into commercial occupancy.

3. On receipt of the application, the petitioner submitted a detailed reply dated 18.10.2019 to revoke intention notice Ext.P5. Without affording an opportunity of hearing 1 st respondent revoked the consent by him order dated 04.11.2019 (Ext.P6). The aforementioned order is appealable, but appeal has been pending for the last two months, no action has been WP(C).No.1532 OF 2020(N) 5 taken so far. In such circumstances, petitioners' predicament is writ large.

4. The learned Government Pleader, Sri.Rajasekharan Nair takes notice on behalf of respondent no.4 and the learned Standing Counsel, Sri.T.Naveen on behalf of respondent No.1.

5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that inaction on the part of the Appellate Authority constituted under the provisions of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 not only writ large, but abberative as the mandatory provisions required to be followed under the Act are not considered. The Judicial Authorities responsible for these are reluctant to discharge their obligation, so that this Court is burdened with unnecessary litigation.

Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the matter, I dispose of the writ petition with a direction to the appellate Authority constituted under Section 28 of the Water Prevention Control of Pollution Act, 1974 to hear the interim application and appeal so that the petitioner is able to ventilate his grievance by pointing out the illegalities, if any, referred to WP(C).No.1532 OF 2020(N) 6 in the appeal against the impugned order there to. The appellate Authority would not be precluded from to considering the interim prayer ex parte as well and take up the interim application within a period of one week from today. In case, such interim application is not heard, there shall be an interim stay of appeal, Ext.P6 during the pendency of appeal.

This writ petition is stands disposed of.

Sd/-

                                          AMIT RAWAL
nak                                          JUDGE
 WP(C).No.1532 OF 2020(N)

                              7



                           APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1          A TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED

07.08.2019 EVIDENCING THE PAYMENT OF LICENSE FEE ISSUED BY THE KOOTHATTUKULAM MUNICIPALITY EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE COMMISSIONERATE OF FOOD SOCIETY,GOVERNMENT OF KERALA.

EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF CONSENT TO OPERATE DATED 12.07.2019 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.

EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 12.11.2019 ISSUED BY THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER,KOOTHATTUKULAM MUNICIPALITY EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 18.10.2019 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE CONSENT REVOKE ORDER DATED 04.11.2019 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL IN APPEAL NO.19/2019 ON THE FILES OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION AS I.A.NO.54/2019 IN APPEAL NO.19/2019 ON THE FILES OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT.

//TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE