V.M.Suresh Kumar Vs. the Environmental Engineer

V.M.Suresh Kumar vs The Environmental Engineer

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided May 21, 2014

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1141429

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1141429
Court: Kerala High Court
Judge: Honourable Mr.Justice a.M.Shaffique
Decided On: May 21, 2014
Subject: Education

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Education

Key legal issue: Education

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

V.M.Suresh Kumar

Respondent

The Environmental Engineer

Excerpt

.....the true copy of reply to exhibit p7 by the2d respondent dated152.2014. respondent(s)' exhibits : -------------------------------------------- ext. r4(a) a true copy of license issued by2d respondent vide no. c5-1/3526/10 dated74.2010. ext. r4(b) a true copy of license issued by2d respondent vide no. c5-74/8551/10 dated1512/2010. ext. r4(c) a true copy of license dated57.2011 issued by department of factories and boilers. ext. r4(d) a true copy of license dated2411.2011 issued by department of factories and boilers. ext. r4(e) a true copy of consent no. ico/pta/793/r1/2013. ext. r4(f) a true copy of letter no. c9-1567/13 dated32.2014. ext. r4(g) a true copy of application no. 1567/13 dated272.2013 and the receipt evidencing the remittance of amount. ext. r4(h) a true copy of application for license and the receipt dated223.2014 evidencing the remittance of amount submitted on behalf of the unit. //true copy// p.s. to judge mn a.m. shaffique, j.=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= w.p(c) no. 6926 of 2014 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= dated this, the 21st day of may, 2014. judgment petitioner has approached this court complaining about the illegal functioning of a workshop by respondents 4 and 5 without having "consent to operate" issued by the pollution control board.2. learned counsel for the 1st respondent as well as party respondents would submit that necessary consent to operate has already been issued.3. in that view of the matter, i do not think that the petitioner is entitled to proceed with the writ petition as the factual circumstances stated is not correct. it shall always be open for the petitioner to challenge the said consent to operate by filing appeal before the appropriate authorities. under these circumstances, the writ petition is dismissed. sd/- a.m. shaffique, judge. tds/

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE WEDNESDAY, THE21T DAY OF MAY2014/31ST VAISAKHA, 1936 WP(C).No. 6926 of 2014 (M) --------------------------- PETITIONER : -------------------- V.M. SURESH KUMAR, S/O. VELAYUDHAN PILLAI, AGED42YEARS, MELEDATHU HOUSE PALAMAROOR JUNCTION, KUMBAZHA P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA PIN-689 653. BY ADV. SRI.K.SHAJ RESPONDENT(S) : ---------------------------- 1. THE ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD DISTRICT OFFICE, MAKKAMKUNNU, PATHANAMTHITTA-689 645.

2. PRAMADOM GRAMA PANCHAYAT REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PRAMADOM P.O. PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN-689 611.

3. DIVYA V.S., AGED28YEARS W/O. VINOD KUMAR, MANOJ BHAVAN, KADAMPANADU P.O. KADAMPANADU SOUTH MURI, KADAMPANAD VILLAGE ADOOR TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN:689 614.

4. GOPALAKRISHNA PILLAI LAXMIVILASAM, PARAMKULAM MURI, MAILAM VILLAGE KOTTARAKKARA TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN:691 006. R1 BY ADV. SRI.M.R.ARUNKUMAR, SC, POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD R2 BY ADVS. SRI.JACOB P.ALEX SRI.JOSEPH P.ALEX R3 & R4 BY ADVS. SRI.GEORGE VARGHESE (PERUMPALLIKUTTIYIL) SRI.A.R.DILEEP SRI.MANU SEBASTIAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON2105-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Mn ...2/- WP(C).No. 6926 of 2014 (M) --------------------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS : ------------------------------------- EXHIBIT P1: THE TRUE COPY OF THE

ORDER

DATED254.2013 OF THE OMBUDSMAN FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS IN ORIGINAL PETITION NO.577 OF2012 EXHIBIT P2: THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED197.2013 NUMBERED AS PCB/PTA/ICO/784/2010. EXHIBTI P3: THE TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S.425 OF 2010 BEFORE THE MUNSIFF COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA. EXHIBIT P4: THE

ORDER

OF THE LEARNED MUNSIFF, PATHANAMTHITTA IN I.A.NO.2620/2010 IN O.S.425 OF2010 DATED282.2011. EXHIBIT P5: THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED2612.2013 ADDRESSED TO THE IST RESPONDET BY THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P6: THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED2612.2013, ADDRESSED TO THE2D RESPONDENT BY THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P7: THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT DATED281.2014. EXHIBIT P8: THE TRUE COPY OF REPLY TO EXHIBIT P7 BY THE2D RESPONDENT DATED152.2014. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : -------------------------------------------- EXT. R4(a) A TRUE COPY OF LICENSE ISSUED BY2D RESPONDENT VIDE NO. C5-1/3526/10 DATED74.2010. EXT. R4(b) A TRUE COPY OF LICENSE ISSUED BY2D RESPONDENT VIDE NO. C5-74/8551/10 DATED1512/2010. EXT. R4(c) A TRUE COPY OF LICENSE DATED57.2011 ISSUED BY DEPARTMENT OF FACTORIES AND BOILERS. EXT. R4(d) A TRUE COPY OF LICENSE DATED2411.2011 ISSUED BY DEPARTMENT OF FACTORIES AND BOILERS. EXT. R4(e) A TRUE COPY OF CONSENT NO. ICO/PTA/793/R1/2013. EXT. R4(f) A TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO. C9-1567/13 DATED32.2014. EXT. R4(g) A TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION NO. 1567/13 DATED272.2013 AND THE RECEIPT EVIDENCING THE REMITTANCE OF AMOUNT. EXT. R4(h) A TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION FOR LICENSE AND THE RECEIPT DATED223.2014 EVIDENCING THE REMITTANCE OF AMOUNT SUBMITTED ON BEHALF OF THE UNIT. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE Mn A.M. Shaffique, J.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W.P(C) No. 6926 of 2014 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 21st day of May, 2014.

JUDGMENT

Petitioner has approached this Court complaining about the illegal functioning of a workshop by respondents 4 and 5 without having "consent to operate" issued by the Pollution Control Board.

2. Learned counsel for the 1st respondent as well as party respondents would submit that necessary consent to operate has already been issued.

3. In that view of the matter, I do not think that the petitioner is entitled to proceed with the writ petition as the factual circumstances stated is not correct. It shall always be open for the petitioner to challenge the said consent to operate by filing appeal before the appropriate authorities. Under these circumstances, the writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- A.M. Shaffique, Judge. Tds/

Same Court & Year Kerala · 2014 Same Parties V.M.Suresh Kumar vs The Environmental Engineer Same Subject Education Same Judge Honourable Mr.Justice a.M.Shaffique