Disposed

Nila Exports v. the Environmental Engineer

Kerala HC21 Jun 2016WP(C)/19124/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court disposed of a writ petition challenging an order closing a cashew factory due to smoke pollution affecting a nearby school. It granted a one-week trial run subject to stringent monitoring conditions and immediate closure if emissions remain harmful to children.

What did the court decide?

Allowed with conditions: Factory permitted to operate for one week under immediate monitoring; further operation contingent on emission standards being met; factory liable to closure if emission found

Nila Exports Vs the Environmental Engineer — Environment and Pollution | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF JUNE 2016/31ST JYAISHTA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 19124 of 2016 (M)

¶6

PETITIONER :

¶7

NILA EXPORTS MANCHANDITHARA NADUVILEMURI P.O., KAYAMKULAM ALAPPUZHA – 690 537 REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETRIX REJITHA SOMARAJAN ULLAS BHAVAN, EZHUKONE P.O., KOLLAM.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.N.D.PREMACHANDRAN SRI.D.AJITHKUMAR

¶9

RESPONDENT(S) :

¶10

1. THE ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD DISTRICT OFFICE, ALAPPUZHA – 688 013.

¶11

2. THE HEADMISTRESS CMLP SCHOOL, MANKUZHY PULIKANNAKKU, ALAPPUZHA – 690 537.

¶12

R1 BY ADV. SRI. M.AJAY, SC

¶13

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21-06-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

¶15

...2/-

¶16

WP(C).No. 19124 of 2016 (M)

¶17

APPENDIX

¶18

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS :

¶19

EXT.P1	: A COPY OF THE LICENCE OBTAINED FROM THE JOINT DIRECTOR OF FACTORIES AND BOILERS DATED 13.12.2012.
EXT.P2	A COPY OF THE CONSENT TO OPERATE AND RENEWAL OF THE CASHEW FACTORY DATED 12.8.2015 ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT.
EXT.P3	A COPY OF THE D AND O LICENCE DATED 17.5.2016.
EXT.P4	A COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 17.7.2014 FROM THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXT.P5	A COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 7.11.2015 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT.
EXT.P6	A COPY OF THE COMPLETION REPORT FOR THE SET UP OF SECONDARY FIRING SYSTEM DATED 11.11.2014.
EXT.P6(a)	A COPY OF REPORT OF EXAMINATION ISSUED BY SRI.C . VIJAYAKUMAR FOR SUBMISSION BEFORE THE IST RESPONDENT.
EXT.P7	A COPY OF THE REPLY GIVEN BY THE PETITIONER DATED 26.12.2015.
EXT.P8	A COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT DATED 1.4.2016.
EXT.P9	A COPY OF THE CONSENT DATED 29.4.2009.
EXT.P10	A COPY OF THE CONSENT DATED 6-8-2012.
EXT.P11	A COPY OF THE STAY ORDER DATED 10.6.2011 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WP(C) NO. 7898 OF 2013 AND ORDER DT. 8-8-2011.

¶20

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS : NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE

K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.

¶25

----------------------------------

¶26

W.P(C). No.19124 of 2016-M

¶27

---------------------------------Dated this the 21^st day of June, 2016

¶28

JUDGMENT

¶29

The petitioner is concerned with Ext.P8

¶30

order dated 01.04.2016 passed by the first respondent, directing closure of the factory conducted by the petitioner during the morning hours between 9.30 to 4 O'clock, for reason of

¶31

the pollution caused, which has a deleterious effect on the health of children studying in the nearby School.

¶32

The petitioner has a cashew factory, which has been issued with a licence on the basis of a consent to operate given by the first respondent. While the petitioner was so

¶33

carrying on the activities, the second

¶34

W.P(C). No.19124 of 2016-M

¶35

¶36

respondent had approached the petitioner's Manager with Ext.P4 representation. The representation indicates that the thick black smoke emanating from the factory on the roasting of cashew; causes breathing problems to the children of the School. The petitioner was hence requested to tune down the operations in the factory, so as to ensure that the children are not put into difficulty. The petitioner obviously did not accede to such request and hence the second respondent approached the Pollution Control Board.

¶37

The Pollution Control Board inspected the factory as is seen from Ext.P5. Their inspection also revealed that there was thick black smoke emanating, on the operations conducted by the petitioner. It was in such

¶38

W.P(C). No.19124 of 2016-M

¶39

¶40

circumstances that initially by Ext.P5 dated 07.11.2015 the petitioner was asked to either complete the roasting of cashew carried out in the factory before 8 O'clock in the morning or to install an electric borma facility so as to avoid the smoke being discharged from the factory.

¶41

The petitioner contends that he had in fact implemented certain measures, which would to a large extent reduce the emanation of smoke from the factory, as is seen from Ext.P6. The petitioner also claims to have increased the height of the Chimney so as to ensure that the smoke emanating from the factory does not disperse into the School premises.

¶42

The learned counsel appearing for the second respondent would alertly point out that

¶43

W.P(C). No.19124 of 2016-M

¶44

¶45

Ext.P6, which certifies remedial measures having been implemented is issued prior to the inspection of the PCB and issuance of Ext.P5. The inspection having been carried out after the measures were taken by the petitioner, it cannot now be contended that the petitioner would not comply with either of the conditions in Ext.P5. It is also pointed out that Ext.P5 has not been challenged before this Court.

¶46

Ext.P2 renewal of consent to operate,

¶47

contains a specific condition that the secondary firing system installed at the Roasting Section shall be modified or augmented on or before 31.12.2015, so as to bring the emissions in the Roasting Chimney to the limit of the standards prescribed under the Environmental (Protection) Rules.

¶48

W.P(C). No.19124 of 2016-M

¶49

¶50

In such circumstances, the petitioner cannot contend that he would not comply with Ext.P5. However, only in the context of the petitioner undertaking through the learned counsel that the petitioner would tune down the operations between 9.30am to 4pm, the petitioner shall be allowed to function the factory and if any emission is detected, which is harmful to the children, the second respondent would be entitled to immediately bring it to the notice of the first respondent; who shall take immediate action. If the first respondent finds the emission to be objectionable and harmful, then the emission standards shall be measured and recorded and in such circumstances the petitioner shall also be proceeded with accordingly.

¶51

W.P(C). No.19124 of 2016-M

¶52

¶53

Definitely the petitioner could comply

¶54

with the conditions in Exts.P2 and P5 and commence operations, as earlier. The petitioner shall be permitted to operate the factory for a period of one week and the first respondent shall monitor the emissions and permit further operation as undertaken before this Court. Any complaint raised by the second respondent, even after the trial run shall be looked into immediately and if found to be objectionable, the factory shall be liable to be closed down.

¶55

The writ petition is disposed of with the above directions. No order as to costs.

¶56

Sd/-

¶57

K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE.

¶58

//True Copy//

¶59

P.A. to Judge.

¶60

sp/21/06/16

Nila Exports v. the Environmental Engineer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nila Exports v. the 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

Udayan Vs Punalur Municipality

Reliance Security Agency Vs Gopalankutty Kurupu

G. Sakunthala Vs State of Kerala

Deputy Inspector General of Police Vs Kaveri S.

Rajeevan.K.K Vs the Vice Chancellor, University Fo Calicut

Vijayan. P Vs the State of Kerala