Allowed

C.H.Muhammed Kunhi v. the Chief Environmental Engineer

Kerala HC7 Oct 2013WP(C)/637/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition, the High Court of Kerala held that a unit cannot operate without a valid consent to operate. The court ordered the pollution control board officers to ensure the unit did not operate without the requisite license or consent.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed to forbid the third respondent from running the unit without a valid consent to operate.

C.H.Muhammed Kunhi Vs the Chief Environmental Engineer — Kerala HC (2013) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

¶4

MONDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2013/15TH ASWINA, 1935

¶5

WP(C).No. 637 of 2011 (D)

¶6

PETITIONER : -

¶7

C.H.MUHAMMED KUNHI, SAMEERA MANZIL, KULUGUDDE ROAD, KASARGOD.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.V.C.JAMES SRI.GEORGE MECHERIL

¶9

RESPONDENTS : -

¶10

THE CHIEF ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER, KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, REIGONAL OFFICE, KOZHIKODE - 679001.

¶11

THE ASST. ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER, KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, DISTRICT OFFICE, M.A.M. ARCADE, NEAR RAILWAY STATION, KANHANGAD, KASARGODE DISTRICT, PIN - 671315.

¶12

M/S.SUBRAYA ANANTHA KAMATH & SONS, S.A.K. ROAD, ADUKKATHBAIL, KASARAGODE, PIN-671121.

¶13

R1,2 BY ADV. SRI.M.K.CHANDRAMOHAN DAS,SC,POLL.C.BOARD R1,R2 BY ADV. SRI.PHILSON MATHEWS, SC, KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD R3 BY ADV. SRI.D.KRISHNA PRASAD R3 BY ADV. SMT.O.K.SANTHA

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07-10-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

WP(C).No. 637 of 2011 (D)

¶16

APPENDIX

¶17

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS :

¶18

Exhibit P1 :	TRUE COPY OF THE DIRECTIONS ISSUED BY THE 2^ndRESPONDENT TO THE 3^rdRESPONDENT ON 10.11.2010.
Exhibit P2 :	TRUE COPY OF DIRECTION ISSUED ON 27.11.2010 OF THE 2^nd RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P3 :	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE 2^nd RESPONDENT ON 01.12.2010.

¶19

RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES :

¶20

ANNEXURE R1(a) :	TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 04.10.2010.
ANNEXURE R1(b) :	TRUE COPY OF DIRECTION ISSUED TO THE UNIT.
ANNEXURE R1(c) :	TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO: PCB/KSRD/CO/220/2008 DATED 10.11.2010.
ANNEXURE R1(d) :	TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 15.11.2010.
ANNEXURE R1(e) :	TRUE COPY OF LETTER No:PCB/KSRD/ICO/220/2008 DATED 25.11.2010.
ANNEXURE R1(f) :	TRUE COPY OF LETTER No:PCB/KSRD/CO/220/2008 DATED 10.11.2010.

// TRUE COPY //

P.A. TO JUDGE

DMR/-

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.

¶25

W.P.(C)No. 637 OF 2011

¶26

Dated this the 7^th October, 2011

¶27

J U D G M E N T

¶28

The petitioner has approached this Court with the following

¶29

prayers:

¶30

“a) issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or such other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding respondents 1 and 2 to implement Ext.P1 directions forthwith;

¶31

b) issue a direction to the respondents 1 and 2 to see that the 3^rd respondent Unit is to be closed down till the consent is renewed after complying with the directions contained in Ext.P1.

¶32

c) issue a direction to the 2^nd respondent not to renew the consent to operate the Unit before complying with the directions contained in Ext.P1.

¶33

d) and pass such other order or direction which this Honourable Court would deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

¶34

Despite completion of service of notice, there is no

¶35

representation for the third respondent and no counter affidavit has been filed so far.

¶36

A statement has been filed from the part of the Pollution

¶37

¶38

W.P.(C)No. 637 OF 2011

¶39

Control Board, producing copies of the relevant documents as Annexures.R1(a) to R1(f). It is pointed out by the learned Standing Counsel for the Pollution Control Board that repeated instructions were given to the third respondent to comply with the conditions so as to conform to the standards to be maintained with regard to pollution and that inspite of such directions/instructions, they were never complied with by the third respondent. It is also pointed out that the third respondent applied for renewal of the consent on 14.03.2008 for a period upto 31.06.2009. Since the Unit had not complied with the conditions, the Consent to Operate was not renewed for the said period. It is pointed out that, since the term/period for renewal of the consent had expired on 30.06.2009, the third respondent was instructed to apply for fresh renewal of the consent, vide Annexure-R1(f).

¶40

The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the third respondent does not have any valid 'Consent to Operate' as on date. The specific pleadings and submissions made from the part of the petitioner are not rebutted by the respondents.

¶41

¶42

W.P.(C)No. 637 OF 2011

¶43

In the said circumstance, the third respondent is prohibited from running the unit without the requisite licence/consent to operate, as contemplated under the relevant provisions of law. The respondents 1 and 2 shall take necessary steps to ensure that the third respondent does not operate the Unit without the requisite licence/consent to operate.

¶44

The writ petition will stand allowed. No cost.

¶45

P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE

¶46

C.H.Muhammed Kunhi v. the Chief Environmental Engineer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C.H.Muhammed Kunhi v. the Chief Environmental Engineer

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

M/S. Goyal Mg Gases Pvt. Ltd. Vs Kerala Minerals & Metals Ltd.

Praveen Joseph Vs the District Collector,Palakkad & Anr.

Sasikumar Vs State of Kerala

Dineshan Vs State of Kerala

M.Hemalatha Vs the Post Master General

K.v.Unni Vs State of Kerala