The petitioner sought to quash notices issued by the Pollution Control Board and Corporation for compliance with environmental instructions. The court observed that the licence had been renewed and valid, and there was no issue for adjudication.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY
MONDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF NOVEMBER 2016/30TH KARTHIKA, 1938
WP(C).No. 3800 of 2014 (Y)
PETITIONER(S):
GEORGE JOSEPH, MANAGING PARTNER,M/S.DEEPA SEA PRODUCTS, SAKTHIKULANGARA,KOLLAM.
BY ADVS.SRI.JOHNSON GOMEZ SRI.S.BIJU (KIZHAKKANELA)
RESPONDENT(S):
1. THE ENVIORNMENTAL ENGINEER, KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, DISTRICT OFFICE,USHUS BUILDING,BIG BAZAAR,KOLLAM-691001.
2. THE ADDITIONAL CORPORATION SECRETARY, KOLLAM CORPORATION OFFICE,KOLLAM 691001.
R1 BY ADVS. SRI.M.R.ARUNKUMAR, SC SRI. T.NAVEEN SC,
R2 BY ADV. SRI.M.K.CHANDRA MOHAN DAS,SC
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21-11-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No. 3800 of 2014 (Y)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
EXT.,P5 COPY OF THE PROJECT OFFER SUBMITTED BY THE 'EFFLUENT TREATMENT PLANT' OFFERED BY M/S.SB AGENCIES.
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS NIL
/TRUE COPY/
P.A.TO JUDGE
K.V.
SHAJI P. CHALY, J.
W.P.(C) No.3800 of 2014
Dated this the 21st day of November, 2016
JUDGMENT
This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking the following reliefs:
“I. To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction, directing the first respondent to grant two months time for complying with instructions contained in Ext.P3 notice, pending such period to direct the respondents one and two to keep in abeyance all further actions pursuant to Ext.P3 and P8 issued by the first and second respondent's respectively.
II. To issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ order or directions calling for the records leading to Ext.P3 issued by the first respondent and quash the same.
III. To issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ order or directions calling for the records leading to Ext.P8 issued by the second respondent and quash the same.
IV. To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction, directing the first respondent to consider Ext.P7 representation submitted by the petitioner in accordance with law and within a time frame that this Hon'ble Court may consider reasonable; pending such consideration to keep in abeyance all further actions pursuant to Ext.P3 and P8 issued by the first and second respondent's respectively.
V. Issue such other writ order or direction that this Honourable Court may deem fit and proper in the nature and circumstances of the case.”
W.P.(C) No.3800 of 2014
2
The submission made by learned Standing Counsel for the 1st respondent is recorded and the writ petition is closed.
Sd/- SHAJI P. CHALY JUDGE
//true copy//
P.S. to Judge
St/-
21.11.2016
George Joseph
The Environment Engineer, Kerala State Pollution Control Board
The Additional Corporation Secretary, Kollam Corporation
Shaji P. Chaly
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
