IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 25746 of 2008(M)
1. M/S. INFRA HOUSING (P) LTD., CLS
... Petitioner
2. M/S. KUNNEL ENGINEERS &
3. M/S. ABAD BUILDERS (P) LTD.,
4. M/S. CHACKOLAS HABITAT (P) LTD.,
5. M/S. GOKULAM ENGINEERS INDIA (P) LTD.,
6. M/S. JOMER PROPERTIES & INVESTMENTS
7. M/S. SKYLINE BUILDERS,
8. M/S. MENT CONSTRUCTIONS (P) LTD.,
9. M/S. MATHER PROJECT & CONSTRUCTIONS
10. M/S. SKYLINE FOUNDATIONS AND
11. M/S/ YESORAM BUILDERS (P) LTD.,
12. M/S. TRINITY ARCADE (P) LTD.,
13. M/S. NOEL VILLAS AND APARTMENTS,
14. M/S. RDS PROJECTS LTD.,
15. KERALA BUILDERS FORUM, IST FLOOR,
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY SECRETARY,
... Respondent
2. KERALA STATE POLUTION CONTROL BOARD,
3. UNION OF INDIA,
4. THE CENTRAL POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD,
For Petitioner :SRI.C.K.KARUNAKARAN
For Respondent :SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN (SR.)
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.BHAVADASAN
Dated :23/11/2009
O R D E R
K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & P. BHAVADASAN, JJ.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
W.P.(C) Nos. 19166 of 2007, 25746, 29367, 32926,
35903, 37683 of 2008, 871, 7270, 7357, 7467,
8516, 8530, 8545, 8735, 8736, 11583, 11749,
11952, 12781, 12807 & 15058 of 2009.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 23rd day of November, 2009.
JUDGMENT
Balakrishnan Nair, J,
These writ petitions are filed by various builders
and their organisation. The builders are engaged mainly in
constructing residential apartments. They submit, the
residential apartments were never treated as an industry or
undertaking, which requires clearance from the Pollution
Control Board after they are occupied by the residents.
According to them, only domestic waste is generated and the
same does not require any special sewage treatment or effluent
treatment facility. The schedules contained in Rule 3 of the
Environment (Protection) Rules , 1986 do not cover residential
apartments. From November, 2007 the Pollution Control
Board has issued orders and circulars making it mandatory to
have sewage treatment plants/effluent treatment plants for
residential apartments. The parameters for the effluents
WPC. 19166/2007 & con.cases.
2
discharged are contained in paragraph 3.3 of Ext.P3 consent issued
to one of the petitioners. (The exhibits mentioned are those
produced in W.P.(C) 25746 of 2007). Apparently the action was
taken under the proviso to Rule 3(3A)(i) of the Rules. Though the
petitioners maintain that the Pollution Control Board in exercise of
the power under the said proviso could not have issued orders
governing residential apartments, they were willing to obey the
orders issued by the Board. But recently the parameters have been
further revised as evident from Ext.P4, which have become very
difficult to attain in view of the present sewage and effluent
treatment facilities available. The revised parameters are contained
in paragraph 3.3 of Ext.P4, which is a consent to establish the
treatment facilities issued to one of the builders. Some of the
petitioners have pointed out that the establishment of treatment
facilities for waste and effluent is insisted by the Local bodies at
the time of completion of the construction of the residential
apartments as per the original permit granted. Under the
WPC. 19166/2007 & con.cases.
3
instructions of the Pollution Control Board, the Local bodies are
not issuing completion certificate without the treatment facilities
being established. According to them, since the plan and lay out
were finalised long ago and based on the approval of the same
constructions were completed, now it is practically impossible to
provide effluent/sewage treatment facilities as stipulated by the
Pollution Control Board.
2. When the writ petitions were taken up for hearing,
learned counsel for the petitioners pointed out that they have
already moved the Government and the Pollution Control Board
pointing out their grievances. The grievance highlighted before the
Government is regarding the exorbitant fee fixed for grant of
consent for establishing treatment facilities for effluents and waste
in residential apartments. They are also aggrieved by the
classification of residential apartments as coming under Orange
category, for which the fee for submitting application for consent
for establishment and operation of treatment facility for effluents
WPC. 19166/2007 & con.cases.
4
and waste is comparatively high. They feel, residential apartments
should have been included in the Green category. Learned counsel
for the petitioners also submitted that since the Pollution Control
Board and the Government have taken a sympathetic view towards
their grievances and are taking steps to discuss their problems, they
do not want a hearing of the matter on merits. They said, they
would pursue the matter before the Government and the Pollution
Control Board first and in case their grievance is not redressed,
they may be permitted to approach this court again.
3. Learned Standing Counsel for the Pollution Control
Board submitted that regarding the grievances raised against the
orders and circulars issued by the Board, it is willing to have a
discussion with the builders’ representatives and if their grievances
are found genuine, the Board will try to redress the same by taking
action within the four corners of law. Learned Standing also
submitted that a meeting of the parties is scheduled to be held on
30.11.2009.
WPC. 19166/2007 & con.cases.
5
4. The learned Government Pleader upon instructions
submitted that the Government had already constituted a
Committee as per a Government Order issued recently to look into
the grievances raised by the builders and to report what could be
done to redress their grievances, if found genuine.
In view of the submissions made by both sides, these
writ petitions are closed without prejudice to the contentions of
both sides. The pollution Control Board and the Government may
take further action in the matter as submitted before this court as
expeditiously as possible, preferably within three months from
today. It is made clear that we have not expressed any opinion
regarding the merits of the contentions of both sides.
K. Balakrishnan Nair,
Judge
P. Bhavadasan,
Judge
sb.