IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WA.No. 2080 of 2010()
1. MURALEEDHARAN NAIR,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. K.R.USHASREE, PROPRIETOR,
... Respondent
2. THE KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
3. THE ENVIRONMETNAL ENGINEER,
For Petitioner :SRI.R.T.PRADEEP
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble the Chief Justice MR.J.CHELAMESWAR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
Dated :15/12/2010
O R D E R
J. CHELAMESWAR, C.J. &
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
W.A. No. 2080 OF 2010
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dated, this the 15th day of December, 2010
JUDGMENT
Ramachandra Menon J.
The appellant is the petitioner in the Writ Petition, who approached
this Court, seeking for a direction to be issued to the respondents 1 to 3 to
restrain the functioning of the cashew factory of the 6th respondent in the
Writ Petition, mainly in view of the alleged pollution; ‘air’ as well as ‘water’.
2. The main complaint is that, the functioning of the establishment of
the 6th respondent is without obtaining necessary licence and clearance
from the authorities concerned, including the Pollution Control Board and
that because of the illegal operation of the unit, the petitioner who is
residing nearby is not in a position to have a peaceful living and his rights
and liberties as guaranteed under the Constitution are very much adversely
affected, which hence is sought to be intercepted.
3. When the matter came up before a learned Single Judge of this
Court, an interim order was passed on 13th August, 2010, directing the
second respondent to file an affidavit in answer to the various averments
in I.A. 10614 of 2010, particularly as to the standards, if any, fixed for
emission of air pollutants into the atmosphere and other incidental matters
specified therein.
W.A. No. 2080 of 2010
2
4. Subsequently, observing that, no such report was ever filed,
another order was passed on 22nd September 2010, granting extension of
time also ordering personal appearance, if the affidavit was not filed on or
before the stipulated date. It is revealed from the proceedings that the
Pollution Control Board conducted an inspection and filed a report, also
producing copies of the relevant documents. It is stated that, various
directions have been issued by the Pollution Control Board at different
points of time, directing the 6th respondent in the Writ Petition to cure the
defects pointed out, which however have been simply ignored; under
which circumstances, the Pollution Control Board issued a ‘stop memo’
dated 09.09.2010, a copy which has been produced and marked as Ext.
R2(f). It was in the said circumstances, that the 6th respondent in the Writ
Petition filed I.A. No. 14625 of 2010, which came up for consideration
before the learned Single Judge on 22nd October, 2010 and after hearing
both the sides, the ‘stop memo’ issued by the Pollution Control Board [Ext.
R2 (f)] was stayed until further orders, which forms the subject matter of
challenge in the present Writ Appeal.
5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as
the learned counsel appearing for the Pollution Control Board and also the
1st respondent (6th respondent in the Writ Petition) who is the petitioner in
I.A. 14625 of 2010.
W.A. No. 2080 of 2010
3
6. The learned counsel for the first respondent herein submits that,
the factory was established years before; that several workers are engaged
therein; that no pollution is being caused as alleged; that the factory is
situated in a residential area and that there are so many similar factories in
the area and none of these factories is causing any harm to the general
public and no steps have been taken by the Pollution Control Board to
have them closed down. It is also stated that, the present proceedings
have been caused to be filed by the writ petitioner only because of the
personal animosity with the said respondent. The learned counsel further
submits that, on receipt of notice/memo issued by the Pollution Control
Board, the said respondent had actually cured the defects pointed out; also
submitting an application dated 23.03.2010 to conduct a re-inspection,
which is stated as still pending.
7. On going through the materials on record, this Court finds that,
Ext. R2(f) issued by the Pollution Control Board still stands and has not
been subjected to challenge from the part of the contestant respondent,
who has filed I.A. No. 14625 of 2010, wherein present interim order has
been issued by the learned Judge on 22.10.2010. In the said
circumstance, we find that, the interim order of stay now passed on 22nd
October 2010, is never to sub-serve the main relief sought for in the Writ
Petition and as such, we do not find any reason to have it sustained.
W.A. No. 2080 of 2010
4
However, considering the nature of the contentions taken from either side
and also taking note of the prejudice that could be caused to all concerned,
including the workers who were being engaged in the unit, this Court finds
that the matter requires to be dealt with by passing final verdict in the Writ
Petition on an early date.
In the above facts and circumstances, the interim order dated 22nd
October, 2010 in I.A. No. 14625 of 2010 is vacated and the Registry is
directed to post the Writ Petition for final hearing before the concerned
Court in the next week.
It is made clear that we have not expressed anything regarding the
merits of the case involved.
The Writ Appeal is disposed of as above.
J. CHELAMESWAR, CHIEF JUSTICE
P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE
kmd