Disposed

Shakeela v. Revenue Divisional Officer

Kerala HC14 Nov 2011WP(C)/36517/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition seeking direction to stop industrial units causing nuisance. Court direct 5th respondent to inspect 7th respondent's unit for compliance with consent conditions and inspect 6th respondent's unit.

What did the court decide?

Directed 5th respondent to inspect 7th respondent's unit for pollution control compliance within one month; if non-compliant, stop functioning. Also to inspect 6th respondent's unit.

Shakeela Vs Revenue Divisional Officer — Environment and Pollution | Kerala HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM

¶4

MONDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2011/23RD KARTHIKA 1933

¶5

WP(C).No. 36517 of 2010 (L)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

1. SHAKEELA, AGED 43, W/O.LATE MOHAMMED KUNJU, PATTARUMADOM HOUSE ALLAPRA.P.O, VENGOLA VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶8

2. FAISAL, AGED 31, S/O.HYDROSE, PATTARUMADOM HOUSE, ALLAPRA.P.O VENGOLA VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.K.I.SAGEER

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

1. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,

¶12

MOOVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 686 661.

¶13

2. THE DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT -682 030.

¶14

3. VENGOLA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY, VENGOLA.P.O. ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. PIN-683 554.

¶15

4. VILLAGE OFFICER, VILLAGE OFFICE, VENGOLA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 683 554.

¶16

5. ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER, KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD DISTRICT OFFICE, ERNAKULAM - 682 035.

¶17

6. BEERANKUNJU.A.M., PROPRIETOR,

¶18

CHAITHANYA VENEER, RESIDING AT ALANGAI HOUSE ALLAPPRA.P.O., PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM - 683 554

¶19

7. SHIHAB, S/O.MUHAMMED,

¶20

PROPRIETOR, SIXER PLYWOODS, RESIDING AT

¶21

ALANGAI HOUSE, ALLAPPRA.P.O., PERUMBAVOOR

¶22

ERNAKULAM - 683 554

¶23

R5 BY ADV. SRI.M.K.CHANDRAMOHAN DAS,SC,POLL.C.BOAR R6 & R7 BY ADV. SRI.PRAVEEN K. JOY R3 BY ADV. SRI.SIRAJ KAROLY

¶24

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.RANI DEOTHIMA.

¶25

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14-11-2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶26

WP(C).No. 36517 of 2010 (L)

¶27

APPENDIX

¶28

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS :-

¶29

EXT.P1	:	A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 13-11-2008 IN W.P(C) NO.4906/2007 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT.
EXT.P2	:	A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER DATED 1-10-2010.
EXT.P3	:	A TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 9-9-2010.
EXT.P4	:	A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT WITH COPY TO RESPONDENTS NO.2 TO 5.

¶30

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS :-

¶31

EXT.R6(a)	:	TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 26-11-2010 IN W.P.(C) NO.34824/2010 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT.
EXT.R6(b)	:	TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 29-9-2010 BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT.
EXT.R6(c)	:	TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED 30-9-2010 OF THE 7TH RESPONDENT BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXT.R6(d)	:	TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE OWNERSHIP CERTIFICATE DATED 7-3-2007 OF VENGOLA GRAMA PANCHAYATH.
EXT.R6(e)	:	TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE BUILDING TAX RECEIPT DATED 9-7-2010 FOR THE YEAR 2010-2011 OF VENGOLA GRAMA PANCHAYATH.
EXT.R6(f)	:	TRUE COPY OF THE LICENSE FROM THE YEAR 1998.
EXT.R6(g)	:	TRUE COPY OF THE DECREE IN O.S.NO.62/2007 OF MUNSIFF'S COURT,PERUMBAVOOR.

¶32

WP(C).No. 36517 of 2010 (L) -2-

¶33

EXT.R6(h)	:	TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 13-11-2008 IN W.P.(C) NO.4906/2007 AT HIGH COURT SUBMITTED BY THE RESPONDENT.
EXT.R6(i)	:	TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 14-2-2008 OF KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD SUBMITTED BY THE RESPONDENT.
EXT.R6(j)	:	TRUE COPY OF THE LICENCE DATED 19-10-2010 ISSUED BY VENGOLA GRAMA PANCHAYATH.
EXT.R6(k)	:	TRUE COPY OF THE LICENCE DATED 25-6-2011 OF THE VENGOLA GRAMA PANCHAYATH.
EXT.R6(l)	:	TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE CONSENT OF THE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD TO THE 6TH RESPONDENT.
EXT.R6(m)	:	TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE CONSENT OF POLLUTION CONTROAL BOARD TO THE 7TH RESPONDENT.
EXT.R6(n)	:	TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE NON OBJECTION CERTIFICATE OF ASSISTANT DIVISIONAL OFFICER DATED 18-2-2010.
EXT.R6(o)	:	TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE N.O.C OF CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FOREST DATED 25-10-2008.
EXT.R6(p)	:	TRUE COPY OF THE LICENCE ISSUED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF FACTORIES AND BOILERS DATED 27-4-2011.

//TRUE COPY//

P.A TO JUDGE

amk.

C.K. ABDUL REHIM,J.

¶38

W.P.(c) No.36517 OF 2010

¶39

DATED THIS THE 14^th DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2011

¶40

J U D G M E N T

¶41

This writ petition is filed seeking direction to the 1^st respondent to take actions based on Ext.P3 report and to take steps for stoppage of the Industrial unit run by respondents 6 and 7, allegedly situated very close to residential house of the petitioners. It is noticed that the petitioners have approached this Court along with another in W.P (c) No.4906/2007 complaining about functioning of the unit owned by the 6^th respondent. The said writ petition was disposed of through Ext. P1 judgment giving liberty to the petitioner to challenge Ext.P2 proceedings issued by the 3^rd respondent panchayat. It is stated that, on the basis of a complaint submitted by the petitioners before the 1^st respondent a report was called for from the village officer concerned (4^th respondent herein). Grievance of the petitioner is that in spite of the 4^th respondent submitting

¶42

W.P.(c) No.36517/2010

¶43

-2-

¶44

Ext.P3 report the 1^st respondent is not taking any steps for stoppage of the unit which is being run in a manner causing nuisance to the residence of the petitioners.

¶45

In the counter affidavit filed by respondents 6 and 7 it is pointed out that, during pendency of the matter before the 1^st respondent, the 6^th respondent had moved in W.P (c) No.34824/2010 raising apprehension that the 1^st respondent may take proceedings without considering his objections. In Ext.R6 (a) judgment this court observed that if the proceedings is pending before the 1^st respondent and if the 5^th respondent had filed objections the matter can be proceeded only after taking note of the objections. It is stated that on the basis of the objections submitted by the 6^th respondent the matter was considered by the 1^st respondent and the proceedings in question was dropped.

¶46

It is contended by respondents 6 and 7 that the units are being conducted after obtaining requisite licences from the Panchayat and after obtaining consent to operate

¶47

W.P.(c) No.36517/2010 -3-

¶48

the unit issued by the 5^th respondent. All the allegations regarding nuisance and pollution problem alleged in the writ petition are refuted.

¶49

When this writ petition came up for admission before this Court on 07-12-2010 a direction was issued to 5^th respondent to ascertain whether the respondents have established their factory after obtaining consent. In a statement filed by the 5^th respondent it is mentioned that both the units were under operation. But it is mentioned that the inspection conducted on 06-01-2011 revealed that the unit of the 7^th respondent has not taken proper control measures such as dust control and water scrubber was not provided. The chimmney and the green belt along the periphery was not provided. It is further stated that a notice intimating proposal to refuse consent was issued to the 7^th respondent on 16-02-2011. In reply the 7^th respondent had requested 45 days time for providing the control measures. It is also stated that a further inspection was conducted on

¶50

W.P.(c) No.36517/2010

¶51

-4-

¶52

08-04-2011 and it was found that the control measures were not taken as promised. Hence consent is not issued to the unit.

¶53

According to the learned counsel appearing for respondents 6 and 7 Exts.R6 (l) and R6 (m) are consent to operate issued with respect to units owned by each of them. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Ext.R6 (m) is only consent for veneer unit and not for the plywood factory.

¶54

Considering the fact that the 5^th respondent has reported that 7^th respondent has not complied with the conditions, this writ petition is disposed of directing the 5^th respondent to conduct further inspection with notice issued to the 7^th respondent to provide adequate measures within a period of one month. If on such inspection it is found that the 7^th respondent has not complied with the conditions as mentioned, then necessary steps shall be taken to stop functioning of the unit. The 5^th respondent shall also

¶55

W.P.(c) No.36517/2010

¶56

-5-

¶57

conduct an inspection on the unit of the 6^th respondent in order to ensure that no pollution problem or nuisance is caused to the petitioners or any other neighbourbing residents.

¶58

Since I do not find any reason to issue directions to the 1^st respondent in view of the above mentioned facts and circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of on the basis of the directions issued to the 5^th respondent as stated above.

¶59

Sd/- C.K. ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE.

¶60

AMG

¶61

True copy

¶62

P.A to Judge

Shakeela v. Revenue Divisional Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shakeela v. Revenue Divisional Officer

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

Geethakumary Vs the Authorised Officer

Vinto Somy Vs Intelligence Officer and Others

A.Salahudeen & Others Vs State of Kerala & Another

N.Gopinathan Vs the District Collector,Trivandrum & Ors.

Mridul S.V Vs State of Kerala

Ramani.P.I Vs the Secretary,Vazhayaoor Scb and Others