IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C) No. 16459 of 2006(H)
1. THOMAS MATHEW,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
2. THE KERALA POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD,
3. THE DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER,
4. MEENACHIL GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REPRESENTED
5. ANNAMMA BABY KALLOLIKUNNEL,
For Petitioner :SRI.SUBHASH CYRIAC
For Respondent :SRI.BABU JOSEPH KURUVATHAZHA,SC,POLU.C.
The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE
Dated :15/12/2006
O R D E R
PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, J.
..........................................................
W.P.(C) No.16459 OF 2006
...........................................................
DATED THIS THE 15TH DECEMBER, 2006
J U D G M E N T
This Writ Petition is filed seeking a direction to respondents 1 to
4, viz., the State, the Pollution Control Board, the D.M.O. and the
Meenachil Grama Panchayat, not to permit the 5th respondent to
operate her factory M/s.Rosan Concrete Hollow Block Industry without
obtaining licence.
2. The Government Pleader on the basis of written instructions
from the D.M.O. would submit that the 5th respondent is conducting
the factory on the strength of a licence issued by the Meenachil Grama
Panchayat (the 4th respondent) the period of which will expire only on
31.3.2007 and that she is having consent from the Pollution Control
Board which has been validated upto 31.12.2008. Learned
Government Pleader further submitted that an inspection was
conducted by the D.M.O. through the Technical Assistant attached to
the D.M.O’s office and that during that inspection it was seen that raw-
materials were stored by the 5th respondent at the southern side of the
factory which is just opposite to the petitioner’s house and that it was
noticed that during the operation of hydraulic machineries, sound with
vibration is produced. According to learned Government Pleader, in
WP(C)N0.16459 of 2006
-2-
order to avoid sound and dust pollution, southern and eastern sides of
the factory should be permanently closed upto the road level and raw-
material should not be stored on the southern side.
3. Counsel for the petitioner would place before me copy of order
No.PCB/KTM/A/389/2006 dated 20.10.2006 issued by the
Environmental Engineer of the Pollution Control Board to one Jobin
Tom who is the son of the petitioner. On going through this order, it is
not seen issued to the 5th respondent or even communicated to the 5th
respondent. But obviously the Panchayat has been notified regarding
the decision taken by the Pollution Control Board on the basis of a
sound level monitoring conducted by the Board on 18.10.2006. In
view of the obvious position that the 5th respondent is having licence
from the Panchayat for the period upto 31.3.2007, I do not propose to
pass any order straightaway restraining the 5th respondent from
continuing with the factory. However, the 5th respondent is bound to
abide by the directions which are issued by the Pollution Control Board
and also by the Public Health authority.
Under these circumstances, the Writ Petition will stand disposed
of with the following directions:-
The 3rd respondent-D.M.O. is directed to communicate to the 5th
WP(C)N0.16459 of 2006
-3-
respondent whatever directions that were found necessary on the
basis of the inspection conducted through the Technical Assistant
attached to the 3rd respondent’s Office. Similarly, there will be a
direction to the 2nd respondent (the Environmental Engineer of the
Kottayam District Office of the 2nd respondent) to issue appropriate
directions to the 5th respondent which were found necessary on the
basis of the sound level monitoring referred to in order No.
PCB/KTM/A/389/2006 dated 20.10.2006 issued to Mr.Jobin Tom, son
of the petitioner. Both the 2nd respondent and the 3rd respondent will
comply with the above directions within two weeks of their receiving
copy of this judgment. If it is seen that the 5th respondent has not
complied with those directions within three weeks of receiving those
directions communicated by respondents 2 and 3, they will take
appropriate action under the relevant Statute and the Rules against
the 5th respondent.
(PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, JUDGE)
tgl
WP(C)N0.16459 of 2006
-4-
APPENDIX
PETITIONER’S EXTS:-
EXT.P1 – TRUE COPY OF PETITION DT.24.4.06 SUBMITTED BEFORE R4.
EXT.P2 – TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DT.29.4.06 SUBMITTED BEFORE
R1.
EXT.P3 – TRUE COPY OF ORDER OF R5 WITH REPORT.
EXT.P4 – TRUE COPY OF ORDER OF POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD DT.2.5.06.
EXT.P5 – TRUE COPY OF DO. DT.26.5.06.
EXT.P6 – TRUE COPY OF NOTICE OF R2 DT.11.8.06.
EXT.P7 – TRUE COPY OF NOTICE OF R2 DT.30.8.06
EXT.P8 – TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION OF PETR. DT.18.9.06.
RESPONDENTS’ EXTS:
EXT.R5(a) – TRUE COPY OF CONSENT LETTER ISSUED BY R4 DT.31.10.91.
EXT.R5(b) – TRUE COPY OF NO-OBJECTION CERTIFICATE DT.5.1.91 ISSUED
BY THE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD.
EXT.R5(c)- TRUE COPY OF CONSENT ISSUED BY DO. DT.16.6.06
EXT.R5(d) – TRUE COPY OF CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY GENERAL MANAGER
OF DISTRICT INDUSTRIES CENTRE, KOTTAYAM DT.23.1.92.
EXT.R5(e) – TRUE COPY OF LETTER DT.28.4.06 FROM GENERAL MANAGER
TO THE SECRETARY, MEENACHIL PANCHAYAT.
EXT.R5(f) – TRUE COPY OF CONSENT LETTER DT.21.5.90 SIGNED BY
PADMANABHAN.
WP(C)N0.16459 of 2006
-5-
EXT.R5(g) – TRUE COPY OF CONSENT LETTER DT.28.8.91 SIGNED BY
THOMAS MATHEW.
/TRUE COPY/
WP(C)N0.16459 of 2006
-6-