IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BABU MATHEW P.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE9H DAY OF JANUARY201419TH POUSHA, 1935 WP(C).No. 26403 of 2012 (A) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------- BIJU G. PUTHEN VEEDU, AYANIMOODU, POTHENCODE P.O. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 584. BY ADV. SRI.SUMAN CHAKRAVARTHY RESPONDENTS: ------------------ 1. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY LOCAL ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.
2. THE SECRETARY, POTHENCODE GRAMA PANCHAYAT, POTHENCODE THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 584.
3. THE KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, DISTRICT OFFICE THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REPRESENTED BY THE ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER TC1296[4, 5] PLAMOODU JN, PATTOM P.O. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 004.
4. THE DISTRCIT MEDICAL OFFICER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 584.
5. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, POTHENCODE PS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 584.
6. SUNITHA, D/O.SASIDHARAN, AJAYKRISHNA HOLLOW BRICKS, POTHENCODE THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 584. R2 BY ADV. SRI.K.P.RAJEEVAN R6 BY ADV. SRI.G.S.REGHUNATH R3 BY ADV. SRI. M.AJAY, SC, KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.T.R.RAJESH BY SRI. M.AJAY, SC, KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON0901-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 26403 of 2012 (A) APPENDIX PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1. A TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF HEARING CONDUCTED ON1011.11. EXHIBIT P2. A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED1401.12. EXHIBIT P3. A TRUE COPY OF THE CONSENT REFUSAL NOTICE DTD.09.03.2012. EXHIBIT P4. A TRUE COPY OF THE CONSENT TO OPERATE DATED1605.12. EXHIBIT P5. A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED2905.12 FROM THE CONSULATE GENERAL. EXHIBIT P6. A TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR DATED2007.12. EXHIBIT P7. A TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE HEALTH INSPECTOR3105.2012. EXHIBIT P8. A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED0606.12. EXHIBIT P9. A TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS. RESPONDENTS' EXTS EXT.R6(a):- TRUE COPY OF THE LICENCE DATED0611/12 ISSUED BY SPECIAL GRADE SECRETARY, POTHENCODE GRAMA PANCHAYAT. EXT.R6(b):- TRUE COPY OF THE OWNERSHIP CERTIFICATE DT. 16/02/10 ISSUED BY SPECIAL GRADE SECRETARY, POTHENCODE GRAMA PANCHAYAT. EXT.R6(c):- TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED1102/11 OF THE DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER (HEALTH) THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. EXT.R6(d):- TRUECOPY OF THE RECEIPT FOR LICENCE FEE, PROFESSIONAL TAX ETC. REMITTED TO THE POTHENCODE GRTAMA PANCHAYAT. EXT.R6(e):- TRUE COPY OF THE LICENCE ISSUED FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF FACTORIES AND BOILERS DATED1912/11. EXT.R6(f):- TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY SENT TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER DATED0903/12 TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.R6(g):- TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM SUBMITTED TO DISTRICT INDUSTRIES CENTRE ON2304/12. EXT.R6(h):- TRUE COPY OF THE CONSENT TO OPERATE ISSUED BY KERALA POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD DATED1605/12. EXT.R6(i):- TRUE COPY OF THE SANITATION CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY HEALTH INSPECTOR, PRIMARY HEALTH CENTRE, THONNAKKAL DATED2507/12. EXT.R2(a):- A TRUE COPY OF THE OFFICE COPY OF THE LICENSE DATED0611/12 ISSUED TO THE6H RESPONDENT. EXT.R3(1):- COPY OF CONSENT TO REFUSAL INTENTION NOTICE. EXT.R3(2):- COPY OF INTEGRATED CONSENT TO OPERATE ISSUED. ---------- BABU MATHEW P. JOSEPH, J.
------------------------------------------------ W. P. (C) No.26403 of 2012 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 9th day of January, 2014 JUDGMENT
This Writ Petition has been filed for a direction to the second respondent not to issue licence to the sixth respondent for running her hollow bricks manufacturing unit.
2. Heard both the sides.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the sixth respondent has been running a brick manufacturing unit without complying with the directions in regard to the pollution control measures, causing serious hardship to the petitioner. Learned counsel for the sixth respondent submits that the sixth respondent has been running this brick manufacturing unit for the last three years. She is the sole proprietress of this unit. She was manufacturing 500 hollow bricks a day. She has obtained consent from the third respondent Pollution Control Board for running the unit. The second respondent Panchayat has also issued licence for W. P. (C) No.26403 of 2012 -2- running the unit after satisfying themselves with the pollution control measures taken by the sixth respondent. While so, the petitioner has approached this Court with this Writ Petition alleging incorrect facts. Even though no interim order has been granted by this Court preventing the functioning of the brick manufacturing unit by the sixth respondent, only for the reason of the pendency of this Writ Petition, the second respondent has not renewed the licence for running the unit. Thus, the petitioner is prevented from running this unit absolutely without any reason. Even if the petitioner has any grievance in respect of the consent granted by the third respondent Pollution Control Board, a statutory appeal is provided before the appellate authority against the grant of such consent. Without filing such statutory appeal, the petitioner has no ground to agitate this matter before this Court, he further submits. Learned counsel for the second respondent Panchayat also submits that Ext.R2(a) licence for running the brick manufacturing unit has been granted to the sixth respondent after the W. P. (C) No.26403 of 2012 -3- Panchayat was fully satisfied with the pollution control measures taken by the sixth respondent. The allegation of pollution against the brick manufacturing unit of the sixth respondent is false. The Panchayat is ready and willing to renew Ext.R2(a) licence granted to the sixth respondent, he further submits. In view of the submissions so made by the parties, this Court is of the view that this Writ Petition can be disposed of in the following terms :
1. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the consent granted by the third respondent for running the brick manufacturing unit by the sixth respondent, he can approach the appellate authority by way of filing an appeal against the grant of consent. 2) If the petitioner has any objection in renewing Ext.R2 (a) licence by the Panchayat, he can prefer a representation within three weeks from today raising all his grievances and contentions before the second respondent and the second respondent shall consider and dispose of the same in accordance with law after affording an opportunity of being W. P. (C) No.26403 of 2012 -4- heard to the petitioner within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of that representation. This Writ Petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- BABU MATHEW P. JOSEPH JUDGE kns/- //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE