Allowed

V.M. Hydrose v. Kerala State Pollution Control Board

Kerala HC19 Nov 2013WP(C)/18471/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner sought directions to enforce closure of a piggery operated by the third respondent without a pollution licence. The Court made the interim order absolute, directing closure within three weeks, while acknowledging the respondent's right to seek revision before the Tribunal.

What did the court decide?

The interim order making closure of the piggery was made absolute. The third respondent was granted three weeks to close down; failing this, closure would be implemented.

V.M. Hydrose Vs Kerala State Pollution Control Board — Environment and Pollution | Kerala HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2013/28TH KARTHIKA, 1935

¶5

WP(C).No. 18471 of 2013 (H)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

V.M. HYDROSE, AGED 61 YEARS, S/O.MYTHEEN, VETTIKKAL HOUSE, EZHALLOOR P.O. THODUPUZHA TALUK, IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN-685605.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN

¶9

SRI.MANSOOR.B.H. SMT.P.B.WAHIDA

¶10

SMT.C.SEENA

¶11

RESPONDENT(S):

¶12

1. KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD REPRESENTED BY ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER IDUKKI DISTRICT OFFICE, SRN BUILDING, THODUPUZHA PIN-685584.

¶13

2. REVENUE DIVISONAL OFFICER, CIVIL STATION, PAINAVU.P.O., IDUKKI DISTRICT PIN-625603.

¶14

3. JANARDANAN,

¶15

S/O.LATE KRISHNAN, KUNNEL HOUSE, EZHALLOOR P.O.

¶16

KUMARAMANGALAM, THODUPUZHA, PIN-685605.

¶17

Addl.4. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE

¶18

THODUPUZHA.ADDL.

¶19

*** ADDL. R4 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 26.08.2013 IN IA 11284/2013.**

¶20

R3 BY SR. ADV. SRI.RAJAN JOSEPH

¶21

R2 & ADDL. R4 BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. SAREENA GEORGE R1 BY ADV. SRI. M.AJAY, SC, KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19-11-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

WP(C).No. 18471 of 2013 (H)

¶24

APPENDIX

¶25

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶26

EXHIBIT P1: COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 16/6/12 BEFORE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶27

EXHIBIT P2: COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 16/7/12 ISSUED BY 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶28

EXHIBIT P3: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 11/7/13 BEFORE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶29

EXHIBIT P4: TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION TAKEN BY PANCHAYATH COMMITTEE DATED 22.7.2013.

¶30

EXHIBIT P5: COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 2.8.2013 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

¶31

EXHIBIT P6: COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 2.8.2013 BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE.

¶32

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS

¶33

ANNEXURE	R1(1):	A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.PCB/IDK/COMP/16/12 DATED 16.07.2012.
ANNEXURE	R1(2):	A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.PCB/IDK/COMP/16/12 DATED 31.10.2012.
ANNEXURE	R1(3):	A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER RECEIVED FROM SRI. JANARDANAN, KUNNEL DATED 7.11.2012.
ANNEXURE	R1(4):	A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO. PCB/IDK/COMP/16/12 DATED 08.07.2013 ISSUED TO KUMARAMANGALAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH.
ANNEXURE	R1(5):	A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO. PCB/IDK/COMP/16/12 DATED 01.08.2013 ISSUED TO THE KUMARAMANGALAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH.
ANNEXURE	R1(6):	A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO. PCB/IDK/COMP/16/12 DATED 02.08.2013 ISSUED TO SRI. JANARDANAN, KUNNEL.
ANNEXURE	R1(7):	A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO. PCB/IDK/COMP/16/12 DATED 02.08.2013 ISSUED TO DYSP THODUPUZHA.
ANNEXURE	R1(8):	A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.A6 2596/12 DATED 02.08.2013 RECEIVED FROM the SERCRETARY KUMARAMANGALAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH.
EXHIBIT	R3(A):	TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT IN W.P.C NO. 29346/2012 DATED 26.8.2013.
EXHIBIT	R3(B):	TRUE COPY OF STAY ORDER IN I.A. 1612/2013 IN R.P 128/2013 DATED 3.9.2013 OF TRIBUNAL LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
EXHIBIT	R3(C):	TRUE COPY OF ORDER IN W.P.C NO. 18471/2013 DATED 28.10.2013.
		TRUE COPY

¶34

P.A. TO JUDGE

¶35

¶36

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.

¶37

========================

¶38

W.P.(C). No. 18471 of 2013

¶39

-------------------------------------------Dated this the 19th day of November, 2013

¶40

JUDGMENT

¶41

The petitioner has approached this Court contending that the 3rd respondent is running a piggery without obtaining statutory licence/clearance from the 1st respondent. Accordingly, direction is sought to be given to the first respondent, to take further action pursuant to Ext.P2, invoking Sections 31A and 33 of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981. When the matter came up before this Court on 25.07.2013, the writ petition was admitted and thereafter, an interim order was granted as prayed for on 28.10.2013, virtually to the effect that, the 3rd respondent was prevented from operating the 'piggery' any further, without obtaining a valid licence.

¶42

Pursuant to the notice served to the 3rd respondent, he entered appearance and pointed out that, in the earlier round of litigation, the matter was considered by this Court in W.P.(C). No.29346 of 2012 filed by the 3rd respondent for directing the 1st respondent therein to permit the petitioner to have licence for

¶43

W.P.C. No.18471 of 2013 -2-

¶44

conducting the pig farm. When the matter was considered by this Court, it was brought to the notice of this Court that, the petitioner had already preferred Ext.P2 application therein for getting necessary licence. Challenging the closure notice issued, an appeal was stated as preferred under Section 276 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, which was considered and disposed of, rejecting the application for licence, as per order dated 31.7.2013. Taking note of the submission made by the 3rd respondent (who was the petitioner therein) that the order was served to him only on 3.8.2013 and as to the turn of events, this Court observed that, the relief sought for by the petitioner in the writ petition could not be granted and accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed, relegating the petitioner therein to pursue the revisional remedy before the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions, Thiruvananthapuram, simultaneously directing implementation of the concerned order to be kept in abeyance till the statutory period for filing Revision Petition was over.

¶45

Mr. Rajan Joseph, the learned Senior Counsel for the 3rd respondent submits that I.A No. 1612/2013 in R.P. No. No. 128/2013 filed before the Tribunal was considered and Ext.R3(b)

¶46

W.P.C. No.18471 of 2013 -3-

¶47

order was passed on 3.9.2013, staying the steps for closing down the piggery. The learned counsel for the petitioner points out that the factual position, as conceded from the part of the 3rd respondent, reveals that the 3rd respondent does not have the requisite licence issued by the competent authority to run the piggery as on date. It is also pointed out that, nobody is entitled to run any unit without licence and that when the matter was pending consideration as to whether the licence was to be given or not, it was never open for the Tribunal to have passed Ext.R3 (b) interim order. In any view of the matter, a specific order was passed by this Court subsequently on 28.10.2013 to the effect that, the 3rd respondent shall not conduct any piggery without obtaining proper licence.

¶48

The learned Standing Counsel for the Pollution Control Board submits that the version of the petitioner as to the pollution being caused by the 3rd respondent was found as correct and it was in the said circumstance that, Exts. R1(6) and R1(7) proceedings were issued to cause the piggery to be closed down. 5. After hearing both the sides, this Court is of the firm view that, the 3rd respondent is not entitled to run the piggery without obtaining a proper and valid licence from the competent

¶49

W.P.C. No.18471 of 2013 -4-

¶50

authority. In the said circumstance, the interim order is made absolute and the concerned respondents are directed to take necessary steps to cause the same to be closed down as ordered by the Pollution Control Board as per Exts. R1(6) and R1(7). It is also made clear that, this will not bar the way of the 3rd respondent in pursuing the matter before the Tribunal where the Revision Petition bearing No. 128/2013 is pending and to have the same considered in accordance with the relevant provisions of law. Ultimately if the 3rd respondent obtains necessary licence, it will be open for the 3rd respondent to run the piggery thereafter, subject to satisfaction of the conditions to be imposed, both by the local authority and also by the Pollution Control Board.

¶51

Considering the persuasive submission made by the learned counsel for the 3rd respondent, the 3rd respondent is granted 'three weeks' time to make appropriate arrangements to close down the piggery, failing which it will be for the concerned respondent to implement the closure as ordered hereinbefore.

¶52

The writ petition is allowed.

¶53

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE.

¶54

kp/-

V.M. Hydrose v. Kerala State Pollution Control Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.M. Hydrose v. Kerala State Pollution Control Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dhanya Mithran Vs Dr.K.Elangovan

Jayakumar Vs State of Kerala

M.I.Sunny Vs the District Collector

V.Pushpasree Vs the Tahsildar

Mohammed Fazil.a.M Vs the Vice Chancellor

A.Abdul Vahid Vs State of Kerala