Dismissed

P.P.Thankachan v. the Koovappady Grama Panchayath

Kerala HC22 Mar 2013WP(C)/21198/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged the Tribunal's order dismissing his appeal against approval of a granite crushing unit. The High Court held that the Tribunal's finding on the distance between the unit and the residence was a fact-finding authority's conclusion which should not be interfered with, thus dismissing the writ petition.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed without any specific relief granted to the petitioner.

P.P.Thankachan Vs the Koovappady Grama Panchayath — Environment and Pollution | Kerala HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF MARCH 2013/1ST CHAITHRA 1935

¶5

WP(C).No. 21198 of 2011 (Y)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

P.P.THANKACHAN, S/O.LATE PATHROSE, PARAPURAM HOUSE, KOOVAPPADY, PERUMBAVOOR.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.T.A.UNNIKRISHNAN SRI.K.S.PRAVEEN

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. THE KOOVAPPADY GRAMAPANCHAYATH, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, KOOVAPPADY, PERUMBAVOOR PIN 683544.

¶11

2. BLUE BLACK GRANITES, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, M.R.SALUS, S/O.CHERIYAN PARAPPURAM HOUSE, KOOVAPPADY, PERUMBAVOOR PIN 683 544.

¶12

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

¶13

4. THE ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER, KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, ERNAKULAM PIN 682 030.

¶14

R1 BY ADVS. SRI.R.RANJITH SRI.M.T.SURESHKUMAR R2 BY ADVS. SRI.V.G.ARUN SRI.T.R.HARIKUMAR R3 & R4 BY ADV. SRI.M.K.CHANDRAMOHAN DAS, SC, POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22-03-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

DCS

¶17

WP(C).No. 21198 of 2011 (Y)

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS :-

¶20

EXHIBIT-P1 - COPY OF THE DECISION DATED 15.07.2008 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT

¶21

EXHIBIT-P2- COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 2.2.2011 IN W.P.(C) NO. 34217/2008 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT

¶22

EXHIBIT-P3- COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 13.07.2011 IN APPEAL NO. 354/2008

¶23

EXHIBIT-P4 - COPY OF THE OFFICE ORDER DATED 8.10.2007 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT

¶24

EXHIBIT-P5- COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 22.10.2009 IN APPEAL NO. 11/2008 OF THE AIR APPELLATE AUTHORITY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

¶25

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS :-

¶26

EXHIBITS-R2(a)- COPY OF THE CONSENT TO ESTABLISH ISSUED BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT DATED 16.06.2007

¶27

EXHIBITS-R2(b)- COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C) NO. 7672 OF 2008 DATED 19.03.2008

¶28

EXHIBITS-R2(c)- COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE HEARING HELD ON 03.05.2008

¶29

EXHIBITS-R2(d)- COPY OF THE PROCEEDING OF THE SECRETARY OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT DATED 17.07.2008

¶30

EXHIBITS-R2(e)- COPY OF THE CIRCULAR DATED 4.1.2007 ISSUED BY THE CHAIRMAN, POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

/TRUE COPY/

P.A. TO JUDGE

DCS

A.M. SHAFFIQUE, J

¶35

W.P.(C). NO. 21198 OF 2011

¶36

Dated this the 22^nd day of March, 2013

¶37

JUDGMENT

¶38

The petitioner challenges an order issued by the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions dismissing his appeal filed against an order passed by the Local Authority granting permission to establish an additional granite crushing unit.

¶39

The Tribunal had considered the matter in detail and have come to the conclusion that the Pollution Control Board had already given consent to establish the said unit and therefore there is no reason to interfere with the same. The Tribunal had verified the distance from the unit and that of the petitioner's residence and had come to a finding that the distance was about 71 meters based on a Commission Report which was obtained in a Civil Suit pending between the parties. Since the Tribunal being a fact finding authority had come to such a conclusion, I do not think that it will be justifiable on the part of this Court to interfere with such finding of fact. In so far as there is no illegality in the order passed by the Tribunal, there is no reason to interfere with such an order and accordingly the writ petition is liable to be

¶40

W.P.(C). NO. 21198 OF 2011

¶41

¶42

dismissed.

¶43

The learned counsel for the petitioner however submits

¶44

that subsequently the period of consent to operate the establishment is already over and therefore the party respondent does not have the right to operate the establishment.

¶45

The learned counsel for the party respondent however submits that he has a valid consent to operate till the year 2016. If the petitioner has any grievance regarding the consent so given, it is open for the petitioner to approach the appropriate authorities.

¶46

With these observations this writ petition is dismissed. Needless to state that all the conditions stipulated by the Pollution Control Board has to be observed by the party respondent.

¶47

Sd/-

¶48

A.M. SHAFFIQUE JUDGE

¶49

DCS

P.P.Thankachan v. the Koovappady Grama Panchayath

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.P.Thankachan v. the Koovappady 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

K.Premkumar Vs PWD Roads & Bridges

Joy Scaria Vs Meenachil Grama Panchayath Committee

Thulasi C.H. Vs the Tahsildar

Karthikeyan Nair M.R. Vs the Assistant Executive Engineer

Dr.Jose Issac Vs Kerala University of Health Sciences

Sivan, S/O.Ayyappan Vs the State of Kerala