Disposed

Paulose v. the Kerala State Pollution Control Board

Kerala HC10 Nov 2014WP(C)/21343/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner alleged the 5th respondent's auto workshop violated Pollution Control Board consent, causing drinking water contamination and unauthorized motor usage. Court directed respondent PCB to conduct a surprise site inspection within two weeks to determine if nuisance existed and take closure or abatement action if confirmed.

What did the court decide?

Directed PCB to conduct surprise site inspection within two weeks; if nuisance found, take immediate action to abate it or close the unit.

Paulose Vs the Kerala State Pollution Control Board — Environment and Pollution | Kerala HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE

¶4

MONDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2014/19TH KARTHIKA, 1936

¶5

WP(C).No. 21343 of 2014 (P) ----------------------------

¶6

PETITIONER(S)/PETITIONER:

¶7

PAULOSE, AGED 70 YEARS S/O VARKEY, MURIYATH HOUSE, KAITHAKKADU KARA PATTIMATTOM.P.O, ERNAKULAM, PIN-683562. BY ADVS.SRI.G.G.MANOJ SRI.JAICE JACOB SRI.P.M.BENZIR SRI.S.SARATH PRASAD SRI.C.T.SOMAN RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS:

¶8

THE KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, HEAD OFFICE, PATTOM.P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PIN-695004, REPRESENTED BY ITS MEMBER SECRETARY. 2. THE ERNAKULAM REGIONAL OFFICE, THE KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD GANDHI NAGAR, KOCHI, ERNAKULAM PIN-682020.REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER. 3. THE ERNAKULAM DISTRICT OFFICER NO.1, THE KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD GANDHI NAGAR, KOCHI, ERNAKULAM PIN-682020 REPRESENTED BY ITS ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER. 4. THE ERNAKULAM DISTRICT OFFICE NO.2, THE KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, IST FLOOR MANNALIKUDY ARCADE(MANNA RESIDENCY), M.C.ROAD PERUMBAVOOR, PIN-683542 REPRESENTED BY ITS ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER. 5. MR.K.N.SUBRAMANYAN, PROPRIETOR, M/S DEVI AUTO ENGINEERING WORKS, KUTTIDA KAITHAKKADU KARA, PATTIMATTOM, PIN-683562.

¶9

R BY SRI. M.AJAY, SC, KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

¶10

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 1011-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶11

WP(C).No. 21343 of 2014 (P)

¶12

APPENDIX

¶13

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶14

EXT.P1 COPY OF THE LICENSE DATED 22.04.2013 ISSUED BY THE KUNNATHUNAD GRAMA PANCHAYATH TO THE 5TH RESPONDENT EXT.P2 COPY OF CONSENT NO.PCB/EKM/DO2/IC-229/2013 DATED 11.06.2013 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD TO THE 5TH RESPONDENT

¶15

EXT.P3 COPY OF THE DEPOSITION TAKEN BY THE SECRETARY,KUNNATHUNADU GRAMA PANCHAYATH EXT.P4 COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 12.06.2014 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶16

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS

¶17

-------------------------: NIL

¶18

/TRUE COPY/ P.S. TO JUDGE.

¶19

A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, J.

¶20

¶21

W.P.(C).No. 21343 OF 2014

¶22

¶23

Dated this the 10^th day of November, 2014

¶24

JUDGMENT

¶25

The petitioner has approached this Court alleging that the 5^th respondent is running an auto engineering workshop

¶26

very near to his residence in violation of the relevant conditions

¶27

mentioned in Ext.P2 consent of the Pollution Control Board. The petitioner submitted that the waste water discharged from the 5^th respondent's unit is causing contamination of drinking water in the well situated in his property. It is also submitted that the 5^th respondent is using 30 HP motor without any permission. The petitioner has approached the Pollution Control Board by Ext.P4 representation. Though notice had been issued to the 5^th respondent, it was returned unclaimed.

¶28

In the above facts and circumstances, there shall be a direction to the 2^nd respondent-Pollution Control Board to conduct surprise site inspection of the 5^th respondent's workshop and find out whether the activities conducted by the 5^th respondent is causing any nuisance to the petitioner or any other persons. If any nuisance is caused to the petitioner and others, immediate

¶29

W.P.(C) No.21343/2014

¶30

¶31

action shall be taken to abate the nuisance or to closure of the

¶32

unit. Needful shall be done within a period of two weeks from

¶33

the date of receipt of a copy of this judgement.

¶34

The writ petition is disposed of with the above directions.

¶35

Sd/-

¶36

A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, Judge.

¶37

dpk

¶38

/True copy/ PS to Judge.

Paulose v. the Kerala State Pollution Control Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Paulose v. the 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sasikumar Nambiar Vs the Nodal Officer

Uthuppu Vs the District Collector

Dr.Sabila a. Vs Kerala Public Service Commission

V.K.Sukumaran Vs Union of India

Cherian Varghese Vs State of Kerala

Abdul Shareef Vs the Passport Officer