Dismissed

Vijayan v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC25 Mar 2008WP(C)/6447/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged a Pollution Control Board circular reducing industry-residency distance limits. The court denied immediate adjudication, directing the Board and Panchayat to consider pending applications while hearing petitioners, keeping further challenges open.

What did the court decide?

Directions issued for the Pollution Control Board and Panchayat to consider applications and hear petitioners before passing orders.

Vijayan Vs State of Kerala — Environment and Pollution | Kerala HC (2008)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 25TH MARCH 2008 / 5TH CHAITHRA 1930

¶5

WP(C).No. 6447 of 2008(P)

¶6

------------------------------------PETITIONERS:

¶7

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

¶8

1. VIJAYAN, AGED 49, S/O.BHASKARAN, VALLOPPALLIYIL HOUSE, KOODALLOOR P.O. VAYALA (VIA), KOTTAYAM DIST.

¶9

2. ANTONY, AGED 47, S/O.MARKOSE, VADAKKEKARA HOUSE, KOODALLOOR P.O. VAYALA (VIA), KOTTAYAM DIST.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.S.SREEKUMAR SRI.P.MARTIN JOSE

¶11

RESPONDENTS:

¶12

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

¶13

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM.

¶14

2. THE KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, TRIVANDRUM.

¶15

3. THE SENIOR ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, KOTTAYAM.

¶16

4. KIDANGOOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REPRESENTED BY ITSSECRETARY, KIDANGOOR P.O., KOTTAYAM DIST.

¶17

5. BINU, S/O.ALEXANDER, CHETTIYETH HOUSE, KOODALLOOR P.O. VAYALA (VIA), KOTTAYAM DIST.

¶18

6. ALEXANDER, S/O.MATHEW, CHETTIYETH HOUSE, KOODALLOOR P.O. VAYALA (VIA), KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.

¶19

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.MOHAMMED ANZAR BY ADV. SRI.M.K.CHANDRA MOHANDAS SC, PCB BY ADV. SRI.V.G.ARUN

¶20

SRI.T.R.HARIKUMAR

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

W.P.(C) NO.6447/2008

¶23

APPENDIX

¶24

PETITIONERS EXHIBITS

¶25

EXT.P1:- COPY OF THE DOCUMENT NO.2348/1995 DT. 30.10.95 OF KIDANGOOR VILLAGE. EXT.P2:- COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE RATION CARD OF IST PETITIONER. EXT.P3:- COPY OF THE DOCUMENT NO.2347/1995 DT. 30.10.95 OF KIDANGOOR VILLAGE. EXT.P4:- COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE RATION CARD ON 2ND PETITIONER.

¶26

EXT.P5:- COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DT. 25.1.08 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶27

EXT.P6:- COPY OF THE CIRCULAR DT. 30.4.98 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶28

EXT.P7:- COPY OF THE NEW CIRCULAR NO.PCB/TAC/ST CR.COM/65/05 DT. 17.10.07 ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶29

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS

¶30

EXT.R5(a):- COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT NO.B.294467 DT. 22.2.06. EXT.R5(b):- COPY OF THE RECEIPT NO.B.2702872 DT. 4.7.06. EXT.R5(c):- COPY OF THE RECEIPT NO.B.27-2866 DT. 4.7.06.

¶31

EXT.R5(d):- COPY OF THE RECEIPT DT. 4.7.06.

¶32

EXT.R5(e):- COPY OF THE ENQUIRY REPORT WITH PLAN DT. 6.12.07.

/ TRUE COPY/

P.A. TO JUDGE

tss

PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE, J.

¶37

¶38

W.P.(c).No.6447 OF 2008

¶39

- - - - Dated this the 25^th day of March, 2008

¶40

JUDGMENT

¶41

In this writ petition, the petitioners challenge Ext.P7 circular of the Pollution Control Board whereby the distance from the industry to the nearest residential house has been reduced from 250metre to 150 metre. Though attractive grounds of challenge are raised against Ext.P7, I am of the view that in the nature of this case where the Pollution Control Board is yet to issue consent to establish in favour of the entrepreneur- respondent No.5 and since the Panchayat has not yet processed the 5^th respondent's application for licence, it will suffice if the petitioner is also heard by the Pollution Control Board and the Panchayat takes a decisions on the application submitted by the 5^th respondent. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of issuing the following directions:

¶42

The Pollution Control Board will consider the application for consent submitted by the 5^th respondent. The Pollution Control Board

¶43

WPC.No.6447/08

¶44

¶45

shall hear the petitioners also before orders are passed on that application. Similarly the Panchayat will consider the application submitted by the 5^th respondent for licence and hear the petitioners also before decision is taken on the licence application. Once the Panchayat and Pollution Control Board takes decisions on the applications respectively pending before them, the decisions will be communicated to the petitioners. The petitioners right to challenge the decisions ( if they are against them) on all available grounds including the grounds raised in the present writ petition regarding the legality of the circular are left open.

¶46

PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE JUDGE

¶47

sv.

¶48

WPC.No.6447/08 2

Vijayan v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijayan v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jibi Thomas Vs Mini Antony

Dr.Xavier C.Moolayil Vs Govt.of Kerala

K.S.Baby Vs State of Kerala

Jose Thomas.M. Vs Union of India & Ors.

Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Vs v.a.Sofia

Samuel Mathew Vs Pathanamthitta District Panchayat