Disposed

Cochin Kagaz Ltd. v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC3 Feb 2009WP(C)/3045/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged a stop memo issued by the Panchayat halting the petitioner's plant due to pollution allegations. The court directed the Panchayat to finalize the decision after affording the petitioner an opportunity to be heard and produce evidence.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the 2nd respondent-Panchayat to take a final decision on Ext. P10 after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner.

Cochin Kagaz Ltd. Vs State of Kerala — Environment and Pollution | Kerala HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 3RD FEBRUARY 2009 / 14TH MAGHA 1930

¶5

WP(C).No. 3045 of 2009(K) -------------------------

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

¶8

COCHIN KAGAZ LIMITED,REGISTERED OFFICE K.T.TOWER, MUTTOM, THAIKKATTUKARA,ALUVA, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR,MR.K.K.JOY.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR SRI.A.K.JAYASANKAR NAMBIAR SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI SRI.P.BENNY THOMAS SRI.ANIL D. NAIR

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

¶12

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, LOCAK SELF GOVERNMENT (RD) DEPARTMENT, GOVT.SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶13

KARUKUTTY GRAMA PANCHAYAT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, GRAMA PANCHAYAT OFFICE KARUKUTTY P.O.,PIN-683576.

¶14

KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS MEMBER SECRETARY, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶15

ADV. SRI.G.SANTHOSH KUMAR (P). FOR R2

¶16

SRI. CHANDRAMOHAN DAS GOVT. PLEADER SMT. K.R. DEEPA.

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: W.P.C.NO. 3045/2009.

¶19

EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF LICENCE DT. 1-12-2008. EXT.P2 DO. DO. EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF LICENCE. EXT.P4 DO. DO. EXT.P5 RECEIPT DT. 10-3-2008. EXT.P6 DO. DO. EXT.P7 APPLICATION DT. 1-9-2007. EXT.P8 APPLICATION DT. 1-9-2007. EXT.P9 LETTER DT. 17-6-2008. EXT.P10 NOTICE DT. 19-1-2009. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: ---------------------------------------

¶20

EXT.R2(a) COMPLAINT DT. 31-8-08. EXT.R2(b) REPORT DT. 3-9-2008. EXT.R2(c) LETTER DT. 1-9-2008. EXT.R2(d) SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DT. 5-9-2008. EXT.R2(e) REPLY DT. 8-9-2008. EXT.R2(f) NOTICE DT. 5-1-2009. EXT.R2(g) REPLY DT. 7-1-2009.

[TRUE COPY]

P.S TO JUDGE.

S. Siri Jagan, J.

W. P (C) No. 3045 of 2009

¶25

The petitioner is aggrieved by Ext. P10 stop memo, whereby the petitioner has been directed to stop the functioning of the petitioner's plant on the ground that the functioning of the plant is causing pollution in the area.

¶26

I am of opinion that having issued Ext. P10, the Panchayat is bound to take a final decision in the matter. In the above circumstances, I dispose of this writ petition with a direction to the 2^nd respondent-Panchayat to take a final decision on Ext. P10, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner including the opportunity to file objections and produce evidence. The above process shall be completed within a period of one month from today. The petitioner shall file his objections within one week. The petitioner shall be permitted to function the plant till final orders are passed and communicated to the petitioner.

¶27

Tds/

Cochin Kagaz Ltd. v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Cochin Kagaz Ltd. 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

P.Jayan Vs Vijayalekshmi

Sudhakumari.R. Vs Union of India

T.N.Geetha Vs State Ofkerala

M.Kamalakshy Amma, Vs Kalamassery Municipality

Latha Sugathan Vs Asuntha Mohan

Abdurasak Vs Areacode Grama Panchayath