IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 5832 of 2008(T)
1. V.RAJENDRAN, NARAYAN VILASOM,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE DISTRICT ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER,
... Respondent
2. THE DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER,
3. THE HEALTH INSPECTOR, CHATTANADU
4. THE CHATTANNOOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH
5. SREEKUMARI, W/O.SREEKUMAR, PROPRIETOR,
6. MADHUKUMAR, PROPRIETOR, KINGSTON
For Petitioner :SRI.SAJITH KUMAR V.
For Respondent :SMT.K.K.THULASY BHAI,SC,POLLUTION C.BOA
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :11/06/2008
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
------------------------------------
W.P.(C) 5832 of 2008
-------------------------------------
Dated: JUNE 11, 2008
JUDGMENT
The petitioner submits that the 5th respondent is running an
industrial unit close to his residential premises. According to him,
the unit is functioning without installing any pollution control
measures.
2. It is his case that respondents 5 and 6 are closely
connected and that they are engaged in the same line of activities.
It is contended that both of them, in collusion with each other,
misled the officials of the Pollution Control Board and made them
inspect the facilities that are provided in the industrial unit of the
6th respondent and obtained Ext.P1 consent in relation to the
industrial unit of the 5th respondent, even without conducting an
inspection of the said industrial unit. Petitioner submits that Ext.P1
consent obtained by the 5th respondent is vitiated by fraud that had
been played on the officials of the Board and hence is vitiated.
3. Learned counsel for the 5th respondent, on the other hand,
WP(C) 5832/08
2
would dispute the allegations that are made and would assert for
the position that the 1st respondent had inspected his unit and was
satisfied about the pollution control measures that he had installed.
It is stated that it was only thereafter Ext.P1 consent was issued by
the 1st respondent. Petitioner is also referring to Ext.P12, a
communication issued by the Board on 23.1.2008, informing the 5th
respondent that his unit was functioning without taking the
pollution control measures and was causing pollution problems to
the people living close to the unit. It is stated that even after
Ext.P12, the defects noticed are not rectified and the industrial unit
is continuing to function as before.
4. The standing counsel appearing for the 1st respondent
would submit that it was only on satisfaction of the facilities
provided that Ext.P1 consent was issued. They also say that they
conducted inspection on 9.1.2008 and based on the findings,
Ext.P12 was issued.
5. Although the learned counsel for the petitioner has argued
for invalidating Ext.P1 consent issued by the Pollution Control Board
contending that it was vitiated by fraud, I do not think that on the
WP(C) 5832/08
3
materials placed and in view of the disputed questions of fact
canvassed by both sides, this court will be justified in arriving at a
conclusion one way or the other. If at all the petitioner is aggrieved
by the consent order, the statute itself provides for the remedy and
the aggrieved party could have pursued those remedies.
6. Consent has been granted to the 5th respondent subject of
course to the conditions that are prescribed by the 1st respondent.
Since the petitioner has a serious complaint regarding the continued
functioning of the industrial unit, which has been endorsed by the
Pollution Control Board also in Ext.P12 issued on 23.1.2008, it is the
bounden duty of the 5th respondent to rectify those defects, if not
already done. This is a matter for the 1st respondent to satisfy
himself by an inspection. While doing this, they will also take note
of the submission made by the 5th respondent that the defects are
rectified.
7. As already stated, the 5th respondent’s unit is now
functioning on the strength of Ext.P1 consent and it is the
responsibility of the 1st respondent to ensure compliance of the
conditions of Ext.P1. Therefore I direct that the 1st respondent
WP(C) 5832/08
4
shall conduct an inspection of the industrial unit of the 5th
respondent, and if he finds that any one of the conditions imposed
in Ext.P1 is not complied with, it will be open to the 1st respondent
to take appropriate action for the suspension of all activities in this
unit until the defects are rectified. I also direct that the 1st
respondent shall conduct periodic inspection of the 5th respondent’s
unit to ensure that the 5th respondent complies with the conditions
of Ext.P1. It is directed that before inspection is conducted, the 1st
respondent shall give the petitioner also a notice. If he so desires,
he can also be present at the time of inspection.
ANTONY DOMINIC
JUDGE
mt/-