Disposed

P.v.Poulose v. the Rayamangalam Grama Panchayat (Spl.Gr

Kerala HC15 Jun 2011WP(C)/8877/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court directed the 3rd respondent (Panchayat) and 5th respondent (Forest Dept) to finalize pending clearances within six weeks. It directed the State Level Committee to decide the pending NOC application under the Godavarman principles, allowing unit operation only after statutory clearance.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondents to finalize pending applications within six weeks; direction to State Level Committee to decide pending NOC.

P.v.Poulose Vs the Rayamangalam Grama Panchayat… — Environment and Pollution | Kerala HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 15TH JUNE 2011 / 25TH JYAISHTA 1933

¶5

WP(C).No. 8877 of 2011(H)

¶6

---------------------------------

¶7

PETITIONER(S):

¶8

-------------------

¶9

P.V.POULOSE, PARATHUVAYALIL HOUSE, KEEZHILLAM.P.O., NEAR PARAMBIPEEDIKA, PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADVS. SRI.V.G.ARUN SRI.T.R.HARIKUMAR

¶11

RESPONDENT(S):

¶12

--------------------

¶13

1. THE RAYAMANGALAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT (SPECIAL GRADE), REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, RAYAMANGALAM.P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-683 545.

¶14

2. THE ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER, KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, DISTRICT OFFICE, ERNAKULAM-682 020.

¶15

3. THE KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶16

4. THE DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER OF HEALTH, DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICE, ERNAKULAM-682 011.

¶17

5. THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER(VIGILANCE) DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICE, KOTHAMANGALAM, KOTTAYAM-686 691.

¶18

6. P.M.YELDO, M/S.P.K.TRADING COMPANY, KEEZHILLAM.P.O., ERNAKULAM-683 541.

¶19

R1 BY ADV. SRI.N.K.KARNIS R2-3 BY ADV.SRI.M.K.CHANDRAMOHAN DAS,SC,POLL.C.BOAR R4 & R5 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.BENNY VARGHESE R6 BY ADV. DR.PAULY MATHEW MURICKEN

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/06/2011, ALONG WITH WPC NO.13659 OF 2011 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

svs

¶22

W.P.(C). NO. 8877/2011

¶23

APPENDIX

¶24

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶25

P1: COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE 6TH RESPONDENT'S FACTORY SHOWING SMOKE BEING DISCHARGED FROM THE CHIMNEY.

¶26

P2: COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 12/11/2010 SUBMITTED UNDER RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT.

¶27

P3: COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 08/12/2010.

¶28

P4: COPY OF THE RESOLUTION DATED 30/04/2009.

¶29

P5: COPY OF THE D & O LICENCE FOR INSTALLATION OF MACHINERY.

¶30

P6: COPY OF THE CONSENT TO ESTABLISH DATED 22/07/2009 ISSUED BY THE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD.

¶31

P7: COPY OF THE NO OBJECTION CERTIFICATEDATED 17/07/2009 ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER.

¶32

P8: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION FILED BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 20/12/2010.

¶33

P9: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION FILED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 20/12/2010.

¶34

P10: COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 21/01/2011.

¶35

P11: COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 18/02/2011.

¶36

P12: COPY OF THE REPLY ISSUED UNDER RTI ACT DATED 20/10/2010.

¶37

P13: COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 11/05/2011 ALONG WITH SKETCH SUBMITTED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, RAYAMANGALAM.

¶38

P14: COPY OF THE STOP MEMO ISSUED BY THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, MUVATTUPUZHA, DATED 11/05/2011.

¶39

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL

/TRUE COPY/

P.A. TO JUDGE.

svs

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J.

¶44

¶45

W.P (C) Nos. 8877 &13659 of 2011

¶46

¶47

Dated, this the 15^th June , 2011

¶48

JUDGMENT

¶49

The petitioner in W.P(C) 8877 of 20111 has approached this Court challenging the callous inaction on the part of the respondents in permitting or rather indirectly enabling the 6^th respondent therein to run a plywood factory without the requisite licence and the clearance of the Pollution Control Board. It is stated that, the said establishment is situated within 5 kms. of the nearest forest area and that the Panchayath has not issued any licence to operate, which hence is sought to be intercepted.

¶50

The sixth respondent in the aforesaid case is the petitioner in other one i.e. W.P.(C) No. 13659 of 2011, which has been filed mainly challenging Ext. P10 'memo' issued by the 4^th respondent to stop the operation of the unit, stating that, same is without any licence. It is contended that, the attempt of the petitioner was only to have a trial run of the unit and that huge investments have already been made for setting up the unit. The averments and allegations made by the interested persons in the locality, who are having animosity with the

¶51

W.P. (C) Nos. 8877 & 13659 of 2011

¶52

: 2 :

¶53

petitioner has caused issuance of Ext. P10, which is not correct of sustainable; that the petitioner has approached all the concerned authorities, such as the Panchayath, Forest Department, DMO and such other authorities and it is without any regard to the pendency of the said proceedings, that the operation of unit is caused to be stalled, which is sought to be interfered.

¶54

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in both the cases and the learned standing counsel appearing for the concerned Panchayath, the learned standing counsel for the Pollution Control Board and the learned Government Pleader appearing for other departmental authorities.

¶55

During the pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner has filed I.A. No. 9179 of 2011 also producing copy of the clearance / consent given by the Pollution Control Board, to operate the petitioner's unit, subject to the conditions specified therein. It is stated that, the petitioner has complied with all the conditions.

¶56

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Ext. P4 and P5 applications are pending consideration before 3^rd respondent Panchayath and Ext. P5 application, for NOC to be issued by the 5^th respondent; while Ext. P9 is pending clearance before the 6^th

¶57

W.P. (C) Nos. 8877 & 13659 of 2011

¶58

: 3 :

¶59

respondent. The only relief now pressed before this Court that the above proceedings might be directed to be finalized within a reasonable time.

¶60

On hearing both the sides, this Court does not propose to go into the merits of the case. Both the writ petitions are disposed of, directing the 3^rd respondent to consider Ext. P4 and P5 (in W.P(C) 13659 of 2011) and the 5^th respondent to consider and finalize Ext. P8 (in W.P.(C) 13659 of 2011), in accordance with law, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, as expeditiously as possible at any rate within 'six weeks' from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶61

The learned Government Pleader submits with regard to the pendency of Ext. P9 in W.P(C) 13659 of 2011 before the 6^th respondent, that by virtue of the law declared by the Apex Court in Godavarman Thirumulpad Vs. Union of India (AIR 1997 SC 1228) , it is no more open to issue NOC by the departmental authorities and that the concerned party will have to approach the State Level Committee. As such, it is for the petitioner in W.P(C) 13659 / 2011 to approach the said Committee by filing necessary application in this regard. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

¶62

W.P. (C) Nos. 8877 & 13659 of 2011

¶63

: 4 :

¶64

petitioner has already approached the said Committee by filing the necessary application.

¶65

In the said circumstance, the State Level Committee is directed to consider the application stated as pending before the Committee in the next meeting and take appropriate decision in this regard. The operation of the petitioner's unit shall be commenced only subject to the clearance to be obtained from the concerned authorities as above.

¶66

Both the writ petitions are disposed of accordingly.

¶67

Sd/-

¶68

P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE

¶69

kmd

¶70

/True copy/

¶71

P.A. To Judge

P.v.Poulose v. the Rayamangalam Grama Panchayat (Spl.Gr

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.v.Poulose v. the Rayamangalam Grama Panchayat (Spl.Gr

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anil Kumar K.A. Vs Mr.T.C.Mathew

Rajath Rajendran Vs the District Collector, Kozhikode

Gmm Pfaudler Ltd. Vs M/S. Kerala Minerals & Metals Ltd.

M/S.Radhakrishnan & Company Vs Government of Kerala

Nellikkal N.S.S.Karayogam Vs District Collector,Pta and Others

Ravindranathan Vs Tahsildar & Anor.