IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C) No. 24694 of 2006(M)
1. V.P.HAMEED, AGED 46,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY
... Respondent
2. THE KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
3. THE ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER,
4. THE SECRETARY,
For Petitioner :SRI.VARGHESE C.KURIAKOSE
For Respondent :SRI.P.SANTHOSH KUMAR (TR)
The Hon'ble MR. Justice J.M.JAMES
Dated :15/11/2006
O R D E R
J.M.JAMES, J.
-------------------
W.P.(C). 24694/2006
--------------------
Dated this 15th day of November, 2006
JUDGMENT
The fourth respondent, Kuthiyathodu Grama
Panchayat, had issued Exts. P11 and P12 stoppage orders,
directing the writ petitioner, who is operating a peeling
shed in the locality, as the functioning of the peeling shed
of the writ petitioner is causing environmental pollution of
the area.
2. The learned counsel for the fourth respondent
submits that condition No.11 contained in Ext.P2,
directing the writ petitioner to provide the facilities
mentioned therein for effluent collection, treatment, etc.,
on or before 31.12.2005, had not been complied with.
Owing to the said reason, the fourth respondent did not
give licence for the working of the peeling shed of the writ
petitioner. The counsel further submitted that the
inhabitants of the locality are agitating because of the
W.P.(C).24694/2006
2
pollution, being caused by the functioning of the peeling
shed of the writ petitioner and the inhabitants also
made a complaint before the Ombudsman.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the writ
petitioner submitted that what had been directed
through condition No.11 of Ext.P2 had already been
complied with and despite the opposition, the lying of
pipes for the effluent removal, had also been completed.
Therefore, the Pollution Control Board of Alapuzha, had
collected an amount of Rs.7,500/-, as could be seen from
Ext.P7 receipt, by the Environmental Engineer, Pollution
Control office, Alapuzha. The counsel further submits
that this amount had been realised only as a penalty fees
for the delayed compliance of the directions issued to it.
It is also submitted that the consent from the Pollution
Control Board is only a formality and the same will be
obtained at the earliest and will be furnished before the
fourth respondent, Panchayat.
W.P.(C).24694/2006
3
4. In the above facts situation, I direct the third
respondent, the Environmental Engineer, Kerala State
Pollution Control Board, Alappuzha, to conduct an
inspection and satisfy whether the conditions, required
to be complied with by the writ petitioner, are
satisfactorily completed, as submitted before this Court
during the consideration of the writ petition. In such
event, on having satisfied of the compliance of the legal
requirements, issue necessary consent for the continued
functioning of the peeling shed of the writ petitioner.
Inspection, if any required, shall be done at the earliest
and the consent issued thereafter. This shall be
completed within one month from the date of
production of a copy of this judgment, before the third
respondent.
5. On receipt of the consent letter from the third
respondent, the writ petitioner shall furnish it before the
fourth respondent, Kuthiyathodu Grama Panchayat, who
W.P.(C).24694/2006
4
shall then issue the required licence, as per the
Panchayat Raj Act and Rules.
6. Till the arrangements are made as above, the
respondent Nos. 3 and 4 shall not interfere with the
working of the peeling shed of the writ petitioner.
The writ petition is disposed of as above.
J.M.JAMES
JUDGE
mrcs