IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 11769 of 2004(A)
1. PAILY MATHAI, CHELATHADATHIL,
... Petitioner
2. VARGHESE T.T., THEKKENETH HOUSE,
Vs
1. KOCHI REFINERIES LIMITED,
... Respondent
2. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM.
3. KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD,
For Petitioner :SRI.BABU CHERUKARA
For Respondent :SRI.ANTONY DOMINIC
The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE
Dated :29/05/2008
O R D E R
PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
W.P.(c).No.11769 OF 2004
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 29th day of May, 2008
JUDGMENT
Under challenge in this writ petition is Ext.P4 decision taken by
the District Collector in a conference which was convened by him in
response to the directions by this court in the judgment in
O.P.No.23185/03. The grievance of the petitioners is that the DHDS
plant and other plants in the Cochin Refinery are generating lots of
pollution which makes their lives very difficult. Therefore the request
is that the District Collector and the Cochin Refinery be directed to
initiate proceedings for acquisition of their properties under the
provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. The stand taken by the Cochin
Refinery through the counter affidavit filed by them in this court is that
the Refinery is not in need of petitioners’ land. Refinery has denied the
allegation that their plants are generating pollution.
Consideration of this court in this case is whether there is any
warrant for interfering with Ext.P4 decision of the District Collector.
I have no difficulty to answer that question in negative. It is seen that
WPC.No.11769/04 2
the District Collector found on the basis of the report submitted by the
Land Acquisition Officer that the direction which the Pollution Control
Board had given in the matter is that the properties within the distance
of 100 metres of DHDS plant should be acquired. Petitioners request
is that their properties should also be acquired for the reason that those
properties are within 100 metres from the boundary wall of the
refinery. This request cannot be granted in view of the stand of the
Refinery that the they are not in need of the petitioners property for any
purpose. I dismiss the writ petition. However it is made clear that in
the event of any genuine cause of action arising in the context of law of
Torts or other contexts, this judgment will not stand in the way of
petitioners invoking remedies if any available before the civil court.
PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE
JUDGE
sv.
WPC.No.11769/04 2