IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM WP(C).No. 32460 of 2003(L) 1. M/S.MATHA MATCH INDUSTRIES, NEAR ... Petitioner Vs 1. THE CHIEF ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER, ... Respondent 2. K.M.GEORGE KARULLIL HOUSE, PIRAVOM P.O., 3. THE MEDICAL OFFICER, PRIMARY HEALTH For Petitioner :SRI.C.C.THOMAS (SR.) For Respondent :SRI.SAJEEV KUMAR K.GOPAL The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC Dated :05/06/2009 O R D E R ANTONY DOMINIC,J. --------------------- W.P.(C).No.32460 OF 2003 ------------------------ Dated this the 5th day of June, 2009. JUDGMENT
Challenge in this writ petition is against Exts.P8 and
P10 and the petitioner seeks a declaration that the
petitioner’s establishment do not come within the purview
of the Air(Prevention and Control of Pollution)Act 1981, as
is outside the definition of “Industrial Plant”. A further
direction to the first respondent to reconsider the coverage
of the petitioner’s factory under the purview of the Act is
also sought for.
2. Petitioner submits that it is manufacturing match
sticks which are being supplied to the match factories.
According to the petitioner, the unit has been functioning
since 1978 without any complaint from any corner. It is
seen that the petitioner was issued Ext.P1 letter directing
him to inform whether they are using sulpher in the
WP(c).No.32460/03 2
factory. Reply was given and finally Ext.P6 show cause notice
was issued. On its receipt petitioner gave Ext.P7 reply
disputing its liability to comply with the requirements of Air
Act and also sought for an opportunity of hearing to explain
his contentions. The objections raised by the petitioner
disputing coverage of the Act were rejected and by the
impugned proceedings, the petitioner was asked to apply for
consent and also to increase the height of the Chimney. It is in
these circumstances the writ petition is filed with the aforesaid
prayers.
3. As already noticed, it is the case of the petitioner that
their unit has been functioning since 1978 and that it is not an
industrial plant as defined in Section 2K of the Air Act, due to
absence of air pollutants. It was raising this contention that
the petitioner filed his reply to the show cause notice.
Petitioner wanted to substantiate his contentions and
therefore he sought an opportunity of hearing. However, it
was denied by the respondents for the reason that consequent
on the notification issued by the Government of Kerala, entire
industries in the State have been brought within the coverage
WP(c).No.32460/03 3
of the Air Act and therefore it was not necessary to give an
opportunity of hearing.
4. Having considered the justification thus offered by the
respondents I must confess my inability to accept the same. As
already stated, it is the case of the petitioner that his
establishment is not an industrial plant due to absence of air
pollutants. If it is factually correct, his industry will be outside
the purview of the Act. When the petitioner wanted to
substantiate this contention and sought an opportunity of
hearing, the first respondent should certainly have given that
opportunity to the petitioner. Having not done so, I am
inclined to hold that, Exts.P8 and P10 orders impugned in this
writ petition are passed for violation of the principles of
natural justice.
For that reason and without expressing anything on
merits, Exts.P8 and P10 are set aside and the first respondent
is directed to reconsider Ext.P6 in the light of Ext.P7, with
notice and opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and as
expeditiously as possible. In the meanwhile, the petitioner
will be permitted to run the unit without any penal action
WP(c).No.32460/03 4
against him.
Writ petition is disposed of as above.
(ANTONY DOMINIC) vi JUDGE