IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 13230 of 2007(Y)
1. SAJU VARGHESE, S/O.VARKEY VARGHESE,
... Petitioner
2. SANTHAKUMAR, W/O.HARIHARAN,
3. E.K.VINCE, S/O.LATE E.C.KURIAKOSE,
4. A.ARUL CHELVI, W/O.J.PAUL, FACTORY
5. KURAKOSE T.M., S/O.MATHAI,
6. JOSE PAUL, S/O.POULOSE,
7. M.J.THOMAS, S/O.JOSEPH,
Vs
1. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
... Respondent
2. THE MUNNAR GRAMA PANCHAYAT,
3. THE DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER,
4. PAPPACHAN.K., ELENJIKAL,
For Petitioner :SRI.P.CHANDY JOSEPH
For Respondent :SRI.GEORGE ABRAHAM
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :04/02/2010
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J
-------------------
W.P.(C).13230/2007
--------------------
Dated this the 4th day of February, 2010
JUDGMENT
1. 4th respondent has established a lodging house in Munnar.
Petitioners are owners of the shop room in the ground floor of the
same building. According to the petitioners, the 4th respondent is
running a hotel without any licence from the 2nd respondent and
that too in a most unhygienic manner without providing any
facilities for disposal of wastes including human excrete and other
wastes and effluents. It is stated that the wastes are being
discharged in front of the building and backyard which causes
various health problems. They make reference to Ext.P6 report
which suggest that there is substance in what they allege.
However, the Pollution Control Board had granted consent to the
establishment in question and when consent had expired on
13.6.2009 an application for renewal was submitted which was also
pending consideration.
2. Taking note of the above facts, this Court passed an order on
27.7.2009 directing that the Pollution Control Board will conduct an
enquiry and will renew the consent only if they are satisfied with
W.P.(C).13230/07
2
the facilities that are provided by the 4th respondent for compliance
with the conditions of the consent.
3. It is now submitted that an inspection had been conducted
and the consent has since been renewed. But then renewal of
consent by itself does not exonerate the Pollution Control Board
from its obligation to ensure that its directions and the conditions
of consent are strictly complied with. This requires periodical
inspection and instructions to the licencees, which the respondent
shall faithfully do, bearing in mind the responsibility that it owes to
the Society.
4. Therefore, the Pollution Control Board is directed to make
periodical inspection of the establishment of the 4th respondent and
ensure that the conditions of the consent and its remedial
suggestions are strictly complied with. It is directed that in the
event any violation is found, it will be the responsibility of the
Pollution Control Board to take strict action including for closure of
the lodging house itself.
5. As far as the Revenue Divisional Officer is concerned, the
W.P.(C).13230/07
3
learned Government Pleader, on instructions, submits that the RDO
had initiated proceedings under Section 133 Cr.P.C. against the 4th
respondent. It is stated that the final order was passed, but
however, in a revision filed by the 4th respondent, the order was set
aside by the District & Sessions Court and that the matter was
remanded for fresh consideration. As the matter now stands
remanded, the RDO shall initiate steps for passing fresh orders. The
RDO shall expedite the proceedings and if necessary conduct local
inspection as well and thereafter orders in accordance with law shall
be passed without any delay in the matter
The writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid directions.
Communicate a copy of this judgment to the RDO and the
Chairman, Pollution Control Board, for compliance.
ANTONY DOMINIC,
Judge
mrcs