Disposed

Mohammed Shereef C. v. Secretary, Kappur Grama Panchayat

Kerala HC23 Nov 2010WP(C)/30272/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged an order stopping factory operations due to alleged pollution. Court noted PPCB report showed parameters within limits and directed petitioner to implement five remedial measures within one month to resume operations.

What did the court decide?

Directed petitioner to implement five remedial measures from the Third Respondent's report dated 20.11.2010 within one month and allow joint inspection for resumption.

Mohammed Shereef C. Vs Secretary, Kappur Grama… — Environment and Pollution | Kerala HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN TUESDAY, THE 23RD NOVEMBER 2010 / 2ND AGRAHAYANA 1932

¶4

WP(C).No. 30272 of 2010(H)

¶5

¶6

PETITIONER(S): ---------------

¶7

MOHAMMED SHEREEF.C., PROPRIETOR, M/S.PRINCE COLOURS INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT PLOT, PARAKKULAM, ANAKKARA PO, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.P.VENUGOPAL (1086/92)

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

¶11

SECRETARY, KAPPUR GRAMA PANCHAYAT, KUMARANELLUR PO, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

¶12

KAPPUR GRAMA PANCHAYAT, KUARANELLUR PO, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS, SECRETARY.

¶13

SENIOR ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER, KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, DISTRICT OFFICE, PALAKKAD.

¶14

BY ADV. SMT.P.K.RADHIKA FOR R3

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

EXT.P1	APPENDIX IN W.P.(C) No.30272 of 2010 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE GENERAL MANAGER, DISTRICT INDUSTRIES CENTRE, PALAKKAD VIDE ORDER NO.I-2/3910/05 DATED 31.5.2010
EXT.P2	TRUE COPY OF THE LICENSE VIDE NO.B4-107/07-8 DATED 24.10.2007 ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT IN FAVOUR OF THE FORMER PROPRIETOR OF THE UNIT.
EXT.P3	TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 22.10.2009 ISUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT IN FAVOUR OF THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE PETITIONER.
EXT.P4	TRUE COPY OF THE CONSENT VIDE NO.PCH/PLKD/IC/CO/F/330/2009 ISSUED BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT IN FAVOUR OF THE ESTABLISHMENT.
EXT.P5	TRUE COPY OF THE 'CONSENT VARIATION ORDER' PASSED BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT DATED 20.9.2010
EXT.P6	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT VIDE NO: A6-6686/10 DATED 3.9.2010
EXT.P7	TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE FIRST RESPONDENT DATED 9.9.2010
EXT.P8	TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 15.9.2010.
EXT.P9	TRUE COPY OF THE STAY APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER ALONG WITH THE APPEAL, DATED 15.9.2010
EXT.P10	TRUE COPY OF THE POSTAL RECEIPT FOR HAVING SENT THE APPEAL AND THE STAY PETITION UNDER REGISTERED POST DATED 15.9.2010
EXT.R3(a)	COPY OF THE CONSENT TO ESTABLISH DATED 15.1.2008
EXT.R3(b)	COPY OF THE CONSENT TO OPERATE DATED 24.9.2009
EXT.R3(c)	COPY OF THE CONSENT VARIATION ORDER DATED 20.9.2010
EXT.R3(d)	A TRUE COPY OF THE ANALYSIS REPORT DATED 13.10.2010
EXT.R3(a)	COPY OF THE ANALYSIS REPORT OF WELL WATER DATED 18/11/2010
EXT.R3(b)	ANALYSIS REPORT ALL THE PARAMETERS ARE WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED LIMITS.

¶17

//TRUE COPY//

¶18

P.A . TO JUDGE.

¶19

P.N. RAVINDRAN, J.

¶20

W.P.(C) No.30272 of 2010

¶21

Dated this the 23^rd day of November, 2010

¶22

J U D G M E N T

¶23

Heard the learned counsel on both sides. Ext.P6 issued by

¶24

the first respondent directing the petitioner to stop running his factory, till steps are taken to abate the pollution and nuisance caused on account of the running of the factory is under challenge in this writ petition. Pursuant to the interim orders passed by this Court on 6.10.2010 and on 20.10.2010, the Environmental Engineer, Kerala State Pollution Control Board, Palakkad has conducted a trial run of the petitioner's industrial unit and submitted a report dated 20.11.2010. The relevant portion of the report reads as follows:-

¶25

“Well water sample of the Panchayat well near the unit was taken for analysis as it was alleged that the water was not fit for drinking purpose due to the seepage from the unit. The result of the ambient air monitoring done during the trial run and analysis report of well water sample are produced herewith and marked as R3(a) and R3(b) respectively. As per the analysis reports all the parameters are within the prescribed limits.

¶26

The following remedial measures are suggested for controlling the pollution problems. 1. In the 1^st stage mixing shall be carried out in enclosed tank with provisions for water impingement of fumes from it.

¶27

The fugitive emission from the 2^nd stage (mixing of dinitro chloro benzene, caustic soda with already mixed compound) shall be subjected to water impigement system.

¶28

Cooling may be conducted in closed tank in

¶29

W.P.(C) No.30272 of 2010

¶30

: 2 :

¶31

order to avoid smell of H2 S and NH3.

¶32

Hood over the hot plates in drying area shall be provided and the fumes shall be diverted to water impigement system.

¶33

All the stacks shall be raised to 15 m above ground level.”

¶34

The third respondent has in his report suggested five

¶35

remedial measures to be carried out by the petitioner for controlling the pollution problems. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is willing to implement all the above suggestions.

¶36

In such circumstances, I dispose of the writ petition with a direction to the petitioner to implement the recommendations made by the third respondent in his report dated 20.11.2010 within one month from today and to inform respondents 1 to 3 about the same. Respondents 1 to 3 shall thereupon conduct a joint inspection of the petitioner's industrial unit for the purpose of ascertaining whether the suggestions referred to above have been implemented and if they are satisfied that the suggestions have been implemented, they shall permit the petitioner to resume the functioning of his industrial unit.

¶37

P.N. RAVINDRAN, JUDGE.

¶38

nj.

Mohammed Shereef C. v. Secretary, Kappur Grama Panchayat

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohammed Shereef C. v. Secretary, Kappur Grama Panchayat

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

Kizhakkeveettil Vijayan Vs Payyannur Municipality and Other

C.R.Joseph Vs M/S. Indus Towers Ltd.

M/S.Kallada Holiday Inn Vs State of Kerala and Others

Rasheed Khan Vs the District Collector & Another

M.P.Mony & Another Vs K.S.R.T.C. & Others

R.Sugathan Vs Kerala State Road Transport Corporation