High Court Kerala High Court

K.Janardhanan vs District Collector on 27 June, 2007

Kerala High Court
K.Janardhanan vs District Collector on 27 June, 2007
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 13075 of 2007(F)


1. K.JANARDHANAN, `SREE HARI',
                      ...  Petitioner
2. P.DASAN, S/O.KODIYAN,

                        Vs



1. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CHAIRMAN OF
                       ...       Respondent

2. DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER,

3. POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD REP. BY

4. KANDALLUR GRAMA PANCHAYAT,

5. R.ANIL, S/O.RAJAPPAN,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.S.KRISHNAMOORTHY

                For Respondent  :SRI.K.ANAND (A.201)

The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.M.JOSEPH

 Dated :27/06/2007

 O R D E R
                             K.M.JOSEPH, J.

                  - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

                W.P.(C).No.13075 of 2007

             - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

                    Dated this the 27th day of June, 2007


                                 JUDGMENT

Case of the petitioners in brief is as follows:

Petitioners are residents of Ward No.5 of Kandallur Grama

Panchayat. 5th Respondent is alleged to have erected one Coir

Fibre separating machine and Coir manufacturing machine using

10 H.P. Electric Motor. The electricity authority has given

electrical connection without obtaining any clearance from the

Pollution Control Board. The machines were installed for that

purpose. The dust emanating from the said machines is creating

pollution and using 10 H.P. machine is resulting in noise pollution

also. Machines were installed without obtaining permission under

Sec. 233. Local residents objected to the said action, but the

machines were installed and trial run of the same was started. It

is stated to be in violation of the statutory provision.

2. Petitioner approached this court seeking direction to

stop immediately the process of manufacturing Coir Fibire and

WPC No.13075/07 2

Coir products by the 5th respondent in Sy.No.536/1-A of

Kandallur Panchayat and a direction is sought to the fourth

respondent not to grant any licence for conducting a Coir

manufacturing Unit, using 10 H.P. Motor, and also for installing

Willoing Machine under Section 233. A direction is also sought

to respondents 1 to 3 to take appropriate action against the 5th

respondent in starting the Coir Manufacturing unit.

3. Counter affidavit is filed by the fifth respondent. Fifth

respondent has produced Exts.R5(a) to R5(f). Ext.R5(a) is

produced to show that 5th respondent has constructed a building

for Coir spolling. Ext.R5(b) is the letter issued by the fourth

respondent granting permission to the fifth respondent for

installation of 10 H.P. Motor. Ext.R5(C) is the receipt showing

payment of fee for installation of 10H.P. Motor. Ext.R5(d) is the

copy of the consent issued by the Pollution Control Board.

According to the fifth respondent, R5(d) is valid upto

30-06-2009. Ext.R5(e) is the certificate issued by the Coir

Board certifying that the materials used in the manufacturing

process undertaken by the fifth respondent does not create

pollution. Electricity Board has allocated power as evident from

WPC No.13075/07 3

Ext.R5(f), it is stated. It is the case of the 5th respondent that

the process of ginning does not require water. It is also stated

that fibres are not stored in the unit and are distributed to the

sites of spinning and therefore there does not arise any question

of smelling or dust.

4. I heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Panchayat,

fifth respondent and the learned Government Pleader also.

5. It is not in dispute that the 5th respondent has yet to

obtain licence to run the unit from the Panchayat. It is clear that

without obtaining licence from the local authority, 5th respondent

cannot run the unit. According to the 5th respondent, he has

already applied for licence and that is being considered by the

Panchayat and what is done is only a trial run. The writ petition

is disposed of as follows:

In case the fifth respondent runs the unit without obtaining

licnece from the Panchayat as required, the fourth respondent

Panchayat will use the provisions at its disposal to stop it and

prevent the running. In other words, without obtaining licence

from the Panchayat, 5th respondent shall not be permitted to run

the unit. It is made clear that this judgment will not stand in the

WPC No.13075/07 4

way of the 4th respondent Panchayat taking a decision on the

application of the 5th respondent for licence in accordance with

law.

(K.M.JOSEPH, JUDGE)

sv.

WPC No.13075/07 5