Disposed

Manoj v. District Collector, Kollam

Kerala HC9 Apr 2008WP(C)/9064/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner complained about environmental problems caused by a smoke house operating without complying with consent conditions. The Single Judge directed the Pollution Control Board to inspect the complaint with notice to the operator and disposed of the writ petition.

What did the court decide?

Directed Respondents 3 and 4 to take action on complaint with notice to 8th respondent; petition disposed.

Manoj Vs District Collector, Kollam — Environment and Pollution | Kerala HC (2008)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH APRIL 2008 / 20TH CHAITHRA 1930

¶5

W.P(C).No. 9064 of 2008(D)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

MANOJ, SREE NARAYANA VILASOM, NETTAYAM P.O., AMBALAMKUNNU, VELINALLOOR, KOTTARAKKARA.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.K.SASIKUMAR

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOLLAM.

¶11

2. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, KOLLAM.

¶12

3. POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶13

4. ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER, POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, KOLLAM.

¶14

5. VELINALLOOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, OYOOR P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT.

¶15

6. THE DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER, KOLLAM.

¶16

7. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KOTTARAKARA.

¶17

8. VIJAYA KUMAR, SIM SIM VEEDU, NETTAYAM P.O., AMBALAMKUNNU, VELINALLOOR, KOTTARAKARA.

¶18

BY ADV. SRI. M.K. CHANDRAMOHAN DAS, SC FOR PCB BY GOVT. PLEADER, SRI. I.V. PRAMOD

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/04/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

ANTONY DOMINIC, J.

¶21

Dated this the 9^th April, 2008.

¶22

J U D G M E N T

¶23

The complaint in this writ petition is regarding the functioning of a smoke house belonging to the 8^th respondent which is stated to be in the neighbourhood of the petitioner causing severe environmental problems. However, the fact remains that according to respondents 3 and 4 the smoke house is functioning on the strength of a consent to operate issued under the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981, and granted by respondents 3 and 4. However, the petitioner complains that the conditions of the consent are not complied with by the petitioner. If that be so, it is certainly a matter which has to engage the attention of the aforesaid respondents.

¶24

Now that the petitioner has made Ext. P4 representation before them, I direct that respondents 3 and 4 shall take appropriate action on the complaint. But, however, the same shall be done only with notice to the 8^th respondent also.

¶25

W.P.(C) No. 9064 OF 2008

¶26

- 2 -

¶27

Writ petition is disposed of as above.

¶28

petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment before

¶29

respondents 3 and 4 for compliance.

¶30

ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE

¶31

jan/-

Manoj v. District Collector, Kollam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manoj v. District Collector, Kollam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sakkir Hussain Vs M.K.Joseph

Sarasamma Vs T.P.Senkumar

J.Subhadra Vs T.P.Senkumar, I.P.S.

John Vs Rajappan

Anas C.M. Vs the District Collector,Ernakulam

Jacquline Cleetus Vs State of Kerala