IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 14790 of 2010(W)
1. V.A.THOMAS,VARIYATH HOUSE,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD,
... Respondent
2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER,
3. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER,
4. THE CHIEF ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER,
5. POULOSE,MALIYEKKAL VEEDU,
6. DENNY POULOSE, MALIYEKKAL VEEDU,
For Petitioner :SRI.B.KRISHNA MANI
For Respondent :SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, K.S.E.B
The Hon'ble MR. Justice T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
Dated :26/11/2010
O R D E R
C.T.RAVIKUMAR, J
------------------------------
W.P.(C).NO. 14790 OF 2010
------------------------------------
Dated this the 26th day of November, 2010.
------------------------------------------------
J U D G M E N T
The 5th respondent is running a Saw Mill by name Janatha
Saw-Mill in the adjoining property of the petitioner. The
properties of the petitioner covered as per Exts.P1 and P2 are
having an extent of 5.100 cents and an extent of 1.827 cents and
708 sq.links respectively and they are lying contiguously. The
properties of the petitioner and that of the 5th and 6th respondents
are conterminous on one side and the common boundary wall
thereat lies on the western side of the petitioner’s property and
on the eastern side of the property belonging to the 5th and 6th
respondents. This Writ Petition is filed mainly with the prayer to
issue a Writ of Mandamus commanding the respondents 1 to 3
not to install any transformer on the western and south western
side of the petitioner’s property. The contention of the petitioner
is that running of the said saw mill is posing health hazards and
its hazardous nature made the Environmental Engineer, Pollution
Control Board to issue Ext.P4 notice to the 5th respondent based
W.P.(C).NO. 14790 OF 2010 2
on the inspection of the officials of the Board in the property
belonging to the 5th and 6th respondents more particularly in the
said saw-mill. The petitioner describes Ext.P4 as a report and in
troth, it contains a report submitted in WP(C) No. 21345 of 2009
and a notice issued by the 4th respondent to the 5th respondent.
Direction No.(d) therein reads thus:-
“Suitable species of trees/green plants shall be
planted in the space between in the compliance
(sic.complainant’s) residences and newly
constructed workshed.”
According to the petitioner, the attempt of respondents 5
and 6 is to make direction No.(d) an impossibility to perform and
then to escape from its compliance besides causing further
inconveniences and danger to the petitioner and his family
members by getting a transformer installed in the small strip of
land wherein the trees /green plants are directed to be implanted
by the 4th respondent.
2. A counter affidavit has been filed in the Writ Petition by
respondents 5 and 6. The 6th respondent is the son of the 5th
respondent. According to them, they are possessing all the
W.P.(C).NO. 14790 OF 2010 3
requisite licenses and permits for running the saw mill in
question. That apart, it is submitted thereunder that they have
already complied with the conditions stipulated as per Ext.P4.
Moreover, it is specifically stated thereunder that installation of
the transformer in the proposed location will not in anyway
endanger the lives of the petitioner or his family members as
alleged by the petitioner.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner,
counsel for the respondents 5 and 6 and also the Standing
Counsel for respondents 1 to 3. As already noticed hereinbefore,
the specific contention of the petitioner is that the very running of
the said Saw Mill in question is posing health hazards. It is
causing pollution both of sound and air. It has become virtually
impossible for the petitioner and his family members to live on
the said property on account of the indiscreet running of the saw
mill by respondents 5 and 6, it is further contended. To support
his contentions the petitioner has placed reliance on Ext.P4 report
of the Environmental Engineer, Pollution Control Board that
contained certain directions to the 5th respondent. In short,
W.P.(C).NO. 14790 OF 2010 4
according to the petitioner the installation of the transformer in
the proposed location is hazardous and liable to be prevented. At
the very outset, I may make it clear that I do not propose to
consider the contentions touching the pollution aspect since it is
the subject matter in WPC No.21345/2009 before this Court and
it is still pending.
4. Admittedly, the proposed location of the transformer lies
within the property of respondent Nos.5 and 6. A scanning of the
contentions in this Writ Petition would undoubtedly suggest that
the grievance of the petitioner pertains to the said proposed
location. According to the petitioner, respondents 1 to 3 had not
considered any of the aspects mentioned above and that
respondents 5 and 6 have influenced the authorities and it is on
account of the same that they have taken a decision virtually
acceding to their request to install the transformer in the
aforesaid strip of land. It is contended that installation of the
transformer in the said location would enable the 5th respondent
to escape the liability to comply with the condition under the
direction (d) in Ext.P4. However, the learned Standing Counsel
W.P.(C).NO. 14790 OF 2010 5
submitted that the proposed location lies actually 1.5 metres
away from the common boundary wall into the property of
respondents 5 and 6 and installation of transformer at the said
spot will not in anyway cause any threat whatsoever, as alleged
by the petitioner. Evidently, installing the transformer at the said
location would definitely leave sufficient space between the
petitioner’s residence and the newly constructed shed for
implanting suitable species of trees/green plants. In this case, it
is to be noted that it is common case that already there is a
common boundary wall separating properties and location lies 1.5
metres away in to the property of the 5th and 6th respondents. It
is pertinent to note that the submission made by the learned
counsel for the petitioner 1 and 2 that even after installation of
the transformer at the proposed location it will be energised only
after obtaining approval from the Electrical Inspector. The
learned counsel for the 5th and 6th respondent further submitted
that the said respondents have already implanted saplings in the
small strip of land in compliance with the direction(d) in Ext.P4 ie,
within the 1.5 metres referred to earlier. In view of the facts thus
W.P.(C).NO. 14790 OF 2010 6
obtained, I am of the view that there is no room for any further
grievance to the petitioner. Taking into account, the aforesaid
factual position, the rival contentions and also the submissions
made by the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents 1 and
2, the Writ Petition is disposed of as hereunder:
Respondents 1 to 3 may proceed with the proposal to
install the transformer in the proposed location within the
property of the respondents 5 and 6. However, they shall ensure
that the transformer is installed only at a point, which is 1.5
metres away into the property of respondents 5 and 6 from the
common boundary wall, ie, the compound wall situated on the
western side of the petitioner’s property and on the eastern side
of the property belonging to the respondents 5 and 6, wherein
they have already implanted saplings in terms of the direction(d)
in Ext.P4 by the 4th respondent.
This Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly.
C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE
ln