The petitioner challenged the closure of a mill operated by the fifth respondent due to lack of pollution consent. The court held that since the appeal against the Board's refusal was pending before the Appellate Authority, the writ petition became infructuous and was dismissed. Parties may challenge the appeal outcome separately.
No costs.
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 K.VINOD CHANDRAN
TUESDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF JUNE 2016/7TH ASHADHA, 1938
WP(C).No.6907 of 2006 (V)
PETITIONER(S):-
SUGATHA KUMARI, KANJIRAMNINNA VEEDU,
RAVI BHAVAN, CHOWARA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SRI.M.SREEKUMAR.
RESPONDENT(S):
1. KOTTUKAL GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, KOTTUKAL P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.
2. THE KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
3. THE ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER,
4. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VIZHINJAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
5. K.SUDHAKARAN, CHARUVILA PUTHEN VEEDU, UCHAKADA, PAYATTUVILA P.O., KOTTUKAL, NEYYATTINKARA TALUK.
6. THE STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY,
R2 & R3 BY STANDING COUNSEL SRI.JAMES KURIAN R4 & R6 BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.MANOJ P.KUNJACHAN.
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28-06-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:-
W.P.(C) No.6907 of 2006-V
APPENDIX
PETITIONER’S EXHIBITS:-
| EXT.P1 | TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT FILED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, KOTTUKAL BEFORE THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER DATED 5.8.2002. |
|---|---|
| EXT.P2 | TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 30.5.2003 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM THROUGH THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM CITY. |
| EXT.P3 | TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.PCB/TVM-DO/COMP-1378/2002 DATED 2.11.2002. |
| EXT.P4 | TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN OP.NO.9106/03 DATED 4.3.2004 OF THIS HON’BLE COURT. |
| EXT.P5 | TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE FILE NO.PCB/TVM/AIR/169/04 DATED 28.04.2004 ISSUED TO THE 5THRESPONDENT. |
| EXT.P6 | TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.B1/315/03 DT.12.7.2004 TO THE 5THRESPONDENT. |
| EXT.P7 | TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C) NO.14715/04 DATED 6.1.2005 OF THIS HON’BLE COURT. |
| EXT.P8 | TRUE COPY OF THE DISCHARGE CARD FROM THE TALUK HOSPITAL, NEYYATTINKARA DATED 26.10.1999. |
| EXT.P9 | TRUE COPY OF THE REFERRAL OP CARD NO.030284 DATED 12.3.1997 OF THE MEDICAL COLLEGE, TRIVANDRUM. |
| EXT.P10 | TRUE COPY OF THE MEDICAL PRESCRIPTION DATED 9.11.2000 FROM DT.K.MURALEEDHARAN NAIR. |
| EXT.P11 | TRUE COPY OF THE MEDICAL PRESCRIPTION DATED 25.7.2002 |
| FROM DR.K.MURALEEDHARAN NAIR. |
W.P.(C) No.6907 of 2006-V - 2 -
| EXT.P12 | REFERRAL O.P.CARD NO.62773 DATED 24.4.03 FROM THE MEDICAL COLLEGE, TVM. |
|---|---|
| EXT.P13 | TRUE COPY OF THE O.P.CARD NO.66721 DATED 2.5.2003 FROM THE MEDICAL COLLEGE, TRIVANDRUM. |
| EXT.P14 | TRUE COPY OF THE O.P.CARD NO.66722 DATED 2.5.2003 FROM THE MEDICAL COLLEGE, TRIVANDRUM. |
| EXT.P15 | TRUE COPY OF THE TREATMENT CERTIFICATE NO.TC/2003 DATED 9.4.03 FROM THE REGIONAL CANCER CENTRE. |
| EXT.P16 | TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN O.S.NO.744/02 DATED 27.8.2003 OF ADDITIONAL MUNSIFFS COURT-III, NEYYATTINKARA. |
| EXT.P17 | TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C) NO.23431/05 OF THIS HON’BLE COURT DATED 23.8.2005. |
| EXT.P18 | TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER (ORDER) DATED 18.10.2005 NO.B1/315/03 ISSUED BY THE 1STRESPONDENT. |
RESPONDENT’S EXHIBITS:-
------------------------ NIL.
Vku/[ true copy ]
K. Vinod Chandran, J
-------------------------------------W.P.(C) No.6907 of 2006-V
Dated this the 28th day of June, 2016
JUDGMENT
Without going into the details on the facts, the petitioner
was aggrieved with a mill carried on by the 5th respondent in the adjacent property. Both the petitioner and the 5th respondent had been before this Court time and again, raising rival contentions to continue the operation of the mill and to stop the same. The 5th respondent was found to have no consent from the Kerala State Pollution Control Board [for brevity “the Board”] and, hence, was directed to seek a consent from the Board, which was refused by the Board. An appeal was filed against the same, which is said to be taken as File No.2703/05 before the Appellate Authority. The writ petition was filed specifically contending that the appeal is not being taken up for consideration and in such circumstance, the Panchayat is unable to close down the mill. The prayer is also to place Appeal No.3/2005 filed by the 5th respondent before the Appellate Authority constituted under Section 31 of the Air (Prevention & Control of Pullution) Act, 1981 expeditiously.
WP(C) No.6907 of 2006
pending before the Appellate Authority and if it is so pending, definitely the petitioner could move the Appellate Authority for an expeditious disposal; in which event, the contentions of either parties are left open to be agitated before the said authority. If the appeal is already disposed of, the remedy of each party to challenge
the said order is also left open. As of now, the writ petition has become infructuous and the same is dismissed. No costs.
Sd/-
K.Vinod Chandran Judge.
vku/-
[ true copy ]
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the writ petition is maintainable when the appellant's appeal before the Appellate Authority is pending.
Whether the court can force expeditious disposal of an appeal pending before another authority under Section 31.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
SUGATHA KUMARI
KOTTUKAL GRAMA PANCHAYATH
THE KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
K SUDHAKARAN
THE STATE OF KERALA
K VINOD CHANDRAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
