Disposed

Bone Meals Indiana Pvt. Ltd. v. Tharur Grama Panchayath

Kerala HC5 Jul 2012WP(C)/6978/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala directed the Secretary of the Tharur Grama Panchayath to inspect the petitioner's bone meal factory to verify nuisance abatement. Upon satisfaction, the Secretary must pass fresh orders to lift the stop memo and renew the license within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

Direction to inspect and lift stop memo/renew license within four weeks if nuisance is abated.

Bone Meals Indiana Pvt. Ltd. Vs Tharur Grama… — Environment and Pollution | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF JULY 2012/14TH ASHADHA 1934

¶5

WP(C).No. 6978 of 2012 (V)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

BONE MEALS INDIANA PVT. LTD., AGED 42 YEARS PAZHAMBALAKODE P.O., PALAKKAD-678 544 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, BAIJU P.P. S/O. P.V.PAPPU, PAZHAMBALACODE P.O. PALAKKAD-678 544.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.K.JAYAKUMAR (SR.) SMT.SADHANA KUMARI ESWARI

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. THARUR GRAMA PANCHAYATH

¶11

THARUR, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY PAZHAMBALAKODE P.O., PALAKKAD, KERALA,PIN-678 544.

¶12

2. KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD DISTRICT OFFICE, NEAR DISTRICT PANCHAYAT OFFICE PALAKKAD-678 001 REPRESENTED BY THE ASSISTANT ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER.

¶13

R1 BY ADVS. SRI.G.D.PANICKER

¶14

SMT.JEENA JOSEPH R2 BY ADV. SRI. M.AJAY, SC, KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05-07-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

¶17

WP(C).No. 6978 of 2012 (V) --------------------------

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS

¶20

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

¶21

EXT.P1	COPY OF THE	CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION.
EXT.P1(A)	COPY OF ACKN	OWLEDGEMENT OF FIRM.
EXT.P2	A ROUGH SKET	CH OF THE AREA.
EXT.P3	COPY OF THE	LICENSE.
EXT.P4	COPY OF THE	POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD CONSENT.
EXT.P5	COPY OF THE	LETTER DATED 24/11/2011.
EXT.P6	COPY OF THE BOARD REPORT	LETTER SENT TO THE POLLUTION CONTROL ING COMPLIANCE.
EXT.P7	COPY OF THE	LETTER DATED 21/12/2011.
EXT.P8	COPY OF THE	LETTER DATED 6/1/2012.
EXT.P9	COPY OF THE	STOP MEMO.
EXT.P10	COPY OF THE	NOTICE TO PRODUCE BANK GUARANTEE.
EXT.P11	COPY OF BANK	GUARANTEE.
EXT.P12	COPY OF THE TARUR PANCHA	PROCEEDINGS UNDER THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER, YATH.
EXT.P13	COPY OF THE OF HEALTH, P	PROCEEDINGS OF THE DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER ALGHAT.
EXT.P14	COPY OF THE APPEAL BEFOR	STATEMENT FILED BY THE PANCHAYATH IN THE E THE TRIBUNAL.
EXT.P15	COPY OF THE	ORDER DATED 2/3/2012 OF THE TRIBUNAL.
EXT.P16	COPY OF THE	STOP MEMO DATED 14/3/2012.
EXT.P17	COPY OF THE	ORDER DATED 16.03.2012

¶22

¶23

WP(C).No. 6978 of 2012 (V)

¶24

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS

¶25

EXT.R1(A). COPY OF THE MASS PETITION FILED BY THE LOCAL PEOPLE, DATED 14.11.2011.

¶26

EXT.R1(B). COPY OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE SECRETARY OF THE PANCHAYATH ON 22.11.2011.

¶27

EXT.R1(C). COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE PANCHAYATH ON 12.12.2011. EXT.R1(D). COPY OF THE RESOLUTION OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT 19.12.2011 EXT.R1(E). COPY OF THE LETTER OF THE HEALTH INSPECTOR EXT.R1(F). COPY OF THE LICENSE APPLICATION DATED 22.2.2012

¶28

EXT.R1(G). COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 12.1.2012 SENT BY DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER, PALAKKAD, TO SECRETARY OF THE TARUR GRAMA PANCHAYATH.

¶29

EXT.R1(H). COPY OF THE MAHAZAR OF THE SECRETARY.

¶30

EXT.R1(I). COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 16.03.2012.

/ TRUE COPY /

P.A. TO JUDGE

ANTONY DOMINIC,J

W.P.(C)No.6978 of 2012

¶36

Dated this the 5^th day of July, 2012

¶37

JUDGMENT

¶38

The petitioner, a Bone meal unit has its factory within the jurisdiction of the first respondent Panchayath. They filed this writ petition, mainly aggrieved by Ext.P15 order passed by the Tribunal for Local Self government Institutions and Ext.P16 stop memo and Ext.P17, order passed by the Panchayath refusing renewal of the licence for the year 2012-2013.

¶39

By Ext.P15 order, the Tribunal set aside the order of the

¶40

Panchayath cancelling the licence of the petitioner. However, it confirmed a stop memo issued by the Panchayath and directed the Secretary to inspect the factory of the petitioner and verify whether the nuisance is abated. It was ordered that on such inspection if the Secretary was satisfied that the nuisance is abated, the petitioner will be permitted to re-open the factory and function in accordance with the licence issued.

¶41

Subsequently, Panchayath issued Ext.P16 stop memo,

¶42

in pursuance to Ext.P15. Still later, when the petitioner sought

¶43

W.P.(C).No.6978/2012

¶44

: 2 :

¶45

renewal of the licence that was rejected by Ext.P17 order, mainly on the ground that nuisance is not abated.

¶46

In this writ petition, the Pollution Control Board, which is respondent No.2, has stated that they had issued instructions to the petitioner vide letter dated 21.12.2011. In the light of the instructions thus issued and also in view of the the inspection ordered by the Tribunal in Ext.P15 order, this Court passed order dated 23.05.212, requiring the Pollution Control Board to inspect the factory of the petitioner and confirm the correctness of the claim of the petitioner that it had taken all steps for abating the nuisance as directed by the Pollution Control Board.

¶47

Accordingly, the Pollution Control Board conducted an inspection and has filed their report dated 18.06.2012, stating that the instructions issued by the Board have been complied with.

¶48

Now that the Pollution Control Board has filed the report as above, what survives to be considered is the validity of Exts.P16 and 17, that were issued by the Panchayath. The lifting of the stop memo issued by the Panchayath and reconsideration of the application made by the petitioner for grant of licence, will

¶49

W.P.(C).No.6978/2012

¶50

: 3 :

¶51

depend upon the satisfaction of the Secretary of the Panchayath that the petitioner has taken steps for abating the nuisance. Therefore, the Secretary has to conduct an inspection of the petitioner's unit and on such inspection, if the Secretary is satisfied that the steps for abating the nuisance have been taken, the Secretary shall necessarily pass fresh orders on Exts.P16 and P17.

¶52

Therefore, I direct that the Secretary will inspect the factory of the petitioner and if satisfied that nuisance has been abated, fresh orders will be passed on the application made by the petitioner for renewal of its licence. Needless to say that if the licence is ordered to be renewed, Ext.P16 stop memo will also be revoked. This process will be completed as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within four weeks from the date of production of a copy of this judgment.

¶53

In the meantime and until orders are passed as above, the interim order passed by this Court by order dated 20.03.2012, will remain in force.

¶54

Writ petition is disposed of as above.

¶55

ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE

¶56

Bone Meals Indiana Pvt. Ltd. v. Tharur Grama Panchayath

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bone Meals Indiana Pvt. Ltd. v. Tharur Grama Panchayath

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

Krishnan Nair Vs P.H.Kurian

K.M.Cleetus Vs the Secty.Kottuvally Grama Panchayat

Pullooni Shankaran Vs District Collector

Mr.M.I.Shihabudheen Vs v.M.Shamsudheen

Paulose Vs National Highway Authority of India

Abdul Majeed Vs the State of Kerala