Partly allowed

Ibrahim P. v. Basheer M.A.

Kerala HC13 Oct 2010WA/1730/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed a writ appeal challenging the sustainability of an interim order fixing working hours (8 a.m. to 7 p.m.) for a plywood industry. The Court deleted just this specific timing restriction while sustaining the rest of the lower court's judgment, holding that the industry must operate in conformity with its valid consent and licence from the Pollution Control Board.

What did the court decide?

The specific observation fixing unit operation between 8 a.m. and 7 p.m. was deleted; the rest of the single judge's verdict was sustained.

Ibrahim P. Vs Basheer M.A. — Environment and Pollution | Kerala HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.J.CHELAMESWAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH OCTOBER 2010 / 21ST ASWINA 1932

¶4

WA.No. 1730 of 2010 ----------------------AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.28923/2009 Dated 16/09/2010 ....................

¶5

APPELLANT/R6 IN WPC

¶6

¶7

IBRAHIM P., AGED 65, S/O.AHAMMED PAKKO, THENNOR HOUSE, PROPRIETOR, M/S.SHINE INDUSTRIES, MUDICKAL, PERUMBAVOOR.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.K.P.DANDAPANI, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.PRAVEEN K. JOY

¶9

RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS & RESPONDENTS 1-5 IN WPC,

¶10

¶11

BASHEER M.A., AGED 43, S/O.ALI, MUNDETH HOUSE, MUDICKAL, PERUMBAVOOR-683542.

¶12

K.K.MAKKAR, AGED 55, S/O.KOCHUNNI, THENOOR HOUSE, MUDICKAL, PERUMBAVOOR-683542.

¶13

ABDUL AZEEZ, AGED 34, S/O.IBRAHIM, THENOOR HOUSE, MUDICKAL, PERUMBAVOOR-683542.

¶14

THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER, DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICE, MALAYATTOOR DIVISION, KODANADU P.O., PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM-683544.

¶15

THE ENVIRONMENT ENGINEER, KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, ERNAKULAM-682016.

¶16

THE DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER (HEALTH) ERNAKULAM-682016.

¶17

THE VAZHAKKULAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT, VAZHAKULAM, ERNAKULAM-686670, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY.

¶18

WA NO.1730 OF 2010

¶19

¶20

THE SECRETARY, THE VAZHAKKULAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT, VAZHAKULAM, ERNAKULAM-686670.

¶21

R1 TO R3 BY ADV.SRI.S.SHANAVAS KHAN

¶22

R4 & R6 BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.K.MEERA R5 BY ADV. SRI.M.K.CHANDRA MOHANDAS,SC,POLL.C.BOARD R7 & R8 BY STANDING COUNSEL SRI.K.P.SATHEESAN

¶23

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶24

J.Chelameswar, C.J. & P.R.Ramachandra Menon, J.

¶25

¶26

W.A. No. 1730 of 2010

¶27

¶28

Dated this the 13^th day of October, 2010

¶29

JUDGMENT

¶30

Ramachandra Menon, J.

¶31

The 6^th respondent in W.P.(C) No.28923 of 2009 is the

¶32

appellant herein. The writ petitioners approached this Court with the following prayers:

¶33

“i) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction directing the respondents to see to it that the unit run by the 6^th respondent is closed forthwith if the same continues functioning without obtaining permission from Central Empowered Committee.

¶34

ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction directing the 2^nd respondent to conduct an inspection of 'Shine Industries' run by the 6^th respondent without any delay.

¶35

iii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction directing the 5^th respondent to take all measures for preventing the nuisance caused by the industrial unit of the 6^th respondent and

¶36

¶37

W.A.No.1730 of 2010

¶38

iv) Pass such other orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

¶39

The main grievance of the writ petitioners was that the

¶40

unit was being operated by the 6^th respondent which is a plywood industry without the necessary permit from the Central Empowered Committee. An interim order was passed on 22.7.2010 directing that the unit should be run only between 8 a.m. and 7 p.m. until further orders. The 6^th respondent filed a detailed counter affidavit pointing out the facts and figures and also stating that the permit had already been obtained from the Central Empowered Committee as borne by Ext.R6(a). The position as above was taken note of and the matter was disposed of by the learned Single Judge making the interim order absolute and directing respondents 2 and 5 to ensure that functioning of the unit was in tune with the stipulations in the interim order and also in conformity with the conditions of the consent and licence issued by the Pollution Control Board and the Panchayat.

¶41

The appellant is now before this Court stating that, pursuant to the inspection conducted by the Pollution Control

¶42

W.A.No.1730 of 2010

¶43

¶44

Board, the consent has now been varied as borne by Ext.R2(b) dated 19.8.2010 and that the appellant is very much entitled to operate the unit in tune with the terms and conditions of the consent and licence, in conformity with the relevant provisions of law. The grievance projected in the writ appeal is that the stipulation contained in the interim order dated 22.7.2010 that the operation of the unit shall be between 8 a.m. and 7 p.m. (which has been made absolute while passing the final verdict in the wit petition) adversely affects the rights and interests of the appellant which in turn is sought to be intercepted.

¶45

The learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioners/respondents 1 to 3 herein submits that the grievance of the petitioners is more with regard to the nuisance that is being caused because of the operation of the unit. Leaned counsel also submits that the writ petitioners have no objection in operating the unit in accordance with the terms and conditions of the above consent and licence issued by the concerned authorities and in tune with the relevant provisions of law.

¶46

W.A.No.1730 of 2010

¶47

¶48

In the above facts and circumstances, we make it

¶49

clear that the observation made by the learned Single Judge in the impugned verdict that the operation of the unit shall also be in tune with the interim order dated 22.7.2010 regarding 'fixation of timings' as between '8 a.m. and 7 p.m.' will stand deleted and the rest of the verdict is sustained.

¶50

The writ appeal is disposed of modifying the impugned judgment accordingly.

¶51

J.Chelameswar, Chief Justice

¶52

P.R.Ramachandra Menon,

¶53

Judge

¶54

vns

Ibrahim P. v. Basheer M.A.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ibrahim P. v. Basheer M.A.

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

Mosque Lane Residents Association Vs M/Vijayanand

Ritha Thomas @ Annie Rithakarukaparambil Vs N.v.Sobhana

Aswathy.P Vs State of Kerala

Dr. R.Pushpakumari Vs Dr.Manomohanan & Another

K.R.Mohanan Vs Narayanankutty @ Haridas

Shimna.v.S and Others Vs Ajitha Kumary.K.S and Others