Disposed

Gurudeva Rice & Agro Products v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC15 Feb 2013WP(C)/22428/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a batch of writ petitions challenging consent fee impositions. In view of previous directions mandating the constitution of a committee to re-examine the fee structure after a hearing, the Court directed authorities to constitute a new committee and re-examine the matter. No coercive action was permitted against petitioners with existing interim orders pending the report

What did the court decide?

Direct detection to constitute a new Committee to re-examine the consent fee matter after a hearing; no coercive action against petitioners with interim orders pending the report.

Gurudeva Rice & Agro Products Vs State of Kerala — Environment and Pollution | Kerala HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.P.RAY

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2013/26TH MAGHA 1934

¶5

WP(C).No. 22428 of 2003 (T)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

1. GURUDEVA RICE & AGRO PRODUCTS (P) LTD., SOUTH VELLARAPPILLY PO, KANJOOR, KALADY, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, M.U.ULLAS.

¶8

2. NAMBIATTUKUDY AGRO INDUSTRIES, KOOVAPPADY, ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR, N.P.ANTONY.

¶9

3. NAMBIATTUKUDY RICE MILL, KOOVAPPADY PO, PERUMBAVOOR, REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETRESS, TREESSA GEORGE.

¶10

4. AISWARYA MODERN RICE MILL, KOODALAPAD, KOOVAPPADY PO, PERUMBAVOOR, REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER,VARGHESE.T.A.

¶11

5. CHRISTY MODERN RICE MILL, MATTOOR, KALADY, REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR, C.K.PAULOSE.

¶12

6. NENMANI AGRO MILLS (P) LTD., INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AREA, NALAMMILE, ERUMATHALA PO, ALUVA, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, M.A.MUHEYIDDIN.

¶13

7. NAZ RICE & FOODS PVT.LTD., ERUMATHALA, ALUVA, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, M.A. MUHEYIDDIN.

..2/-

Kss

...2....

WPC.NO.22428/2003 T

¶18

8. KOLATTUKUDY MODERN RICE MILL, MANJAPRA PO, KALADY, REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER, K.C. JOSEPH.

¶19

9. POONOLIL RICE& FOODS PVT.LTD., ERUMATHALA PO, ALUVA, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, P.P.JOHNSON.

¶20

10. PETER'S RICE MILL, INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, ANGAMALY SOUTH, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, T.V.PATHROSE.

¶21

11. E.C.TRADERS, OKKAL PO, ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR, E.C.JOSE.

¶22

12. KOTTACKAL MODERN RICE MILL, MATTOOR, KALADY, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER K.V.ANTO.

¶23

13. EDAPPANA AGRO MILLS, OKKAL, ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, P.D.JOSE.

¶24

14. THEKKEKARA RICE MILL, SREEMOOLANAGARAM PO, ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, T.P.VARGHESE.

¶25

15. POPULAR MODERN RICE MILL, OKKAL, KALADY, REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR,K.D.THOMAS.

¶26

16. VEEJAY MODERN RICE MILL, INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AREA, ANGAMALY SOUTH PO, REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR, T.P.VARKEY.

¶27

17. THRIVENI MODERN RICE MILL, KANJOOR PO, ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR,T.D.YOHANNAN.

Kss

..3/-

..3.....

WPC.NO.22428/2003 T

¶32

18. MAMBIATTUKUDY MODERN RICE MILL, KOOVAPPADY,ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR, N.P.ANTONY.

¶33

19. ERNAKULAM DISTRICT RICE MILL OWNER'S ASSOCIATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT N.P.GEORGE, NAMBIATTUKUDY RICE MILL, KOOVAPPADY, ERNAKULAM.

¶34

BY ADVS.SRI.J.JULIAN XAVIER SRI.FIROZ K.ROBIN

¶35

RESPONDENT(S):

¶36

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶37

2. CHIEF ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER, STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD. REGIONAL OFFICE, ERNAKULAM.

¶38

R2 BY ADV. SRI.BABU JOSEPH KURUVATHAZHA,SC,POLU.C.BOARD BY ADV. M.AJAY,SC,POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD.

¶39

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15-02-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶40

Kss

¶41

WPC.NO.22428/2003 T

¶42

APPENDIX

¶43

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶44

P1: COPY OF THE CONSENT RENEWED UPTO 31/12/2004 IN THE CASE OF 1ST PETITIONER.

¶45

P1(A): COPY OF THE CONSENT RENEWED UPTO 31/12/2004 IN THE CASE OF 2ND PETITIONER.

¶46

P1(B): COPY OF THE CONSENT RENEWED UPTO 31/12/2004 IN THE CASE OF 3RD PETITIONER.

¶47

P1(C): COPY OF THE CONSENT RENEWED UPTO 31/12/2004 IN THE CASE OF 4TH PETITIONER.

¶48

P1(D): COPY OF THE CONSENT RENEWED UPTO 31/12/2004 IN THE CASE OF 5TH PETITIONER.

¶49

P1(E): COPY OF THE CONSENT RENEWED UPTO 31/12/2004 IN THE CASE OF 6TH PETITIONER.

¶50

P1(F): COPY OF THE CONSENT RENEWED UPTO 31/12/2004 IN THE CASE OF 7TH PETITIONER.

¶51

P1(G): COPY OF THE CONSENT RENEWED UPTO 31/12/2004 IN THE CASE OF 8TH PETITIONER.

¶52

P1(H): COPY OF THE CONSENT RENEWED UPTO 31/12/2004 IN THE CASE OF 9TH PETITIONER.

¶53

P1(I): COPY OF THE CONSENT RENEWED UPTO 31/12/2004 IN THE CASE OF 10^th PETITIONER.

¶54

P1(J): COPY OF THE CONSENT RENEWED UPTO 31/12/2004 IN THE CASE OF 11TH PETITIONER.

¶55

P1(K): COPY OF THE CONSENT RENEWED UPTO 31/12/2004 IN THE CASE OF 12TH PETITIONER.

¶56

P1(L): COPY OF THE CONSENT RENEWED UPTO 31/12/2004 IN THE CASE OF 13TH PETITIONER.

..2/-

Kss

..2....

WPC.NO.22428/2003 T

¶61

P1(M): COPY OF THE CONSENT RENEWED UPTO 31/12/2004 IN THE CASE OF 14TH PETITIONER.

¶62

P1(N): COPY OF THE CONSENT RENEWED UPTO 31/12/2004 IN THE CASE OF 15TH PETITIONER.

¶63

P1(O): COPY OF THE CONSENT RENEWED UPTO 31/12/2004 IN THE CASE OF 16TH PETITIONER.

¶64

P1(P): COPY OF THE CONSENT RENEWED UPTO 31/12/2004 IN THE CASE OF 17TH PETITIONER.

¶65

P1(Q): COPY OF THE CONSENT RENEWED UPTO 31/12/2004 IN THE CASE OF 18TH PETITIONER.

¶66

P2: COPY OF THE TABLE SHOWING THE CONSENT FEE FOR INDUSTRIES.

¶67

P3: COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED TO THE 1ST PETITIONER DEMANDING AN AMOUNT OF RS.12,333/-.

¶68

P3(A): COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED TO THE 2ND PETITIONER DEMANDING AN AMOUNT OF RS.5,467/-.

¶69

P3(B): COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED TO THE 3RD PETITIONER DEMANDING AN AMOUNT OF RS.6,867/-.

¶70

P3(C): COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED TO THE 4TH PETITIONER DEMANDING AN AMOUNT OF RS.9,333/-.

¶71

P3(D): COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED TO THE 5TH PETITIONER DEMANDING AN AMOUNT OF RS.6,933/-.

¶72

P3(E): COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED TO THE 6TH PETITIONER DEMANDING AN AMOUNT OF RS.28,333/-.

¶73

P3(F): COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED TO THE 7TH PETITIONER DEMANDING AN AMOUNT OF RS.13,333/-.

¶74

P3(G): COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED TO THE 8TH PETITIONER DEMANDING AN AMOUNT OF RS.4,167/-.

..3/-

Kss

..3....

WPC.NO.22428/2003 T

¶79

P3(H): COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED TO THE 9TH PETITIONER DEMANDING AN AMOUNT OF RS.12,333/-.

¶80

P3(I): COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED TO THE 10TH PETITIONER DEMANDING AN AMOUNT OF RS.6,667/-.

¶81

P3(J): COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED TO THE 11TH PETITIONER DEMANDING AN AMOUNT OF RS.4,167/-.

¶82

P3(K): COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED TO THE 12TH PETITIONER DEMANDING AN AMOUNT OF RS.5,467/-.

¶83

P3(L): COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED TO THE 13TH PETITIONER DEMANDING AN AMOUNT OF RS.4,167/-.

¶84

P3(M): COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED TO THE 14TH PETITIONER DEMANDING AN AMOUNT OF RS.5,467/-.

¶85

P3(N): COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED TO THE 15TH PETITIONER DEMANDING AN AMOUNT OF RS.3,267/-.

¶86

P3(O): COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED TO THE 16TH PETITIONER DEMANDING AN AMOUNT OF RS.5,467/-.

¶87

P3(P): COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED TO THE 17TH PETITIONER DEMANDING AN AMOUNT OF RS.4,167/-.

¶88

P3(Q): COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED TO THE 18TH PETITIONER DEMANDING AN AMOUNT OF RS.6,867/-.

¶89

P4: COPY OF THE GAZETTE NOTIFICATION DTD. 21/10/2002.

¶90

P5: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD. 21/03/2000 IN O.P.NO.8605/2000.

¶91

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: N I L

/TRUE COPY/

P.A.TO JUDGE

Kss

B.P.RAY, J

WP(C)No.22428 of 2003 ......................................... Dated 15^th February, 2013

¶97

JUDGMENT

¶98

In a batch of writ petitions, this court directed as follows.

¶99

“Having heard learned counsel for parties and having regard to the entire facts and circumstances of these cases, I am of the considered view that a committee should be constituted by the State Government to examine the matter afresh after affording sufficient opportunity of hearing to all the affected parties and thereafter take a decision in the matter in the light of the ratio of the decisions rendered by different High Courts and Apex Court. The committee shall consist of the Chief Secretary, representatives of Health, Industry and Finance departments and the representatives of the Pollution Control Board. The committee shall pass a reasoned order by reconsidering the fee and submit a report within six months to the State Government to take appropriate decision in the matter. As against

¶100

Wpc 22428/2003 2

¶101

those petitioners who are having interim orders issued by this court against imposition of the fees subsisting as on today, there shall be no coercive action till the submission of the report. The rest of the petitioners can pay the consent fee on protest subject to the result of the submission of the report”.

¶102

In view of the aforesaid direction, the authorities are directed to constitute a new Committee and re-examine the matter after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. The directions given in the aforesaid decision shall govern this case.

¶103

Writ petition is disposed of as above.

¶104

B.P.RAY, JUDGE

¶105

lgk

Gurudeva Rice & Agro Products v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gurudeva Rice & Agro Products v. State of Kerala

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

Leena Vs the State of Kerala

Gopinadhan Nair Vs State of Kerala

Nehru College of Engineering Vs State of Kerala

M.Rohini Vs the Labour Court, Kannur

P.v.Krishnakumar Vs K.S.E.B.

O.v.Chellama Vs M.G.University