Allowed

Vicar, St.Thomas Marthoma Church v. Kerala State Pollution Control Board

Kerala HC7 Nov 2016WP(C)/7088/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed a writ petition challenging a letter issued by the Pollution Control Board directing the Church to stop burial activities. The Court quashed the letter as it was passed without notice, hearing, and allegedly unauthorized by the Member Secretary.

What did the court decide?

Ext.P3 letter is quashed and the writ petition is allowed permitting the petitioner to continue burial activities.

Vicar, St.Thomas Marthoma Church Vs Kerala State… — Environment and Pollution | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA

¶4

MONDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2016/16TH KARTHIKA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 7088 of 2009 (E)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

VICAR, ST.THOMAS MARTHOMA CHURCH, THEVALLY, KOLLAM.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.BECHU KURIAN THOMAS SMT.NISHA JOHN

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS MEMBER SECRETARY.

¶11

2. PROF.MATHEWS C.VARGHESE, NEWLIGHT, KADAPPAKKADA P.O.

¶12

R1 BY SRI.M.K.CHANDRA MOHANDAS,SC R2 BY ADVS. SRI.S.RAJKUMAR

¶13

SRI.B.VINOD

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07-11-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

K.V.

¶16

WPC NO 7088 OF 2009:

¶17

APPENDIX

¶18

PETITIONERS EXHIBITS:

¶19

P1: COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 28.9.1957 ISSUED ON BEHALF OF THE GOVERNMENT OF KERALA ALONG WITH THE SKETCH.

¶20

P2; COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 5.7.2008 IN HRMP NO 1493/06.

¶21

P3; COPY OF THE LETTER/ORDER DATED 2-2009 NUMBERED AS PCB/HO/KLM/COMP/20/2007.

¶22

RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS: NIL

/TRUE COPY/

P.A.TO JUDGE

K.V.

P.V.ASHA, J.

W.P.(C) No.7088 of 2009

¶28

Dated this the 7^th day of November, 2016

¶29

JUDGMENT

¶30

The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging Ext.P3 letter issued to the Church authorities of Marthoma Church, Polayathodu, Kollam directing to stop the burial activities in the cemetery saying that it is causing serious environmental problems and requesting the petitioner to find a suitable alternative to handle the situation and also directing to take immediate action to avoid seepage of water content from the grave yard.

¶31

According to the petitioner, the church authorities have been using 30 cents of land in Sy.No.245/8A of Eravipuram Village, Kollam as burial ground, since the year 1957. The said land was assigned in favour of the church by the Government of Kerala as per Ext.P1 proceedings dated 28.9.1957. The petitioner submits that the said burial ground is situated in between municipal burial ground and Muslim burial ground Kollam. The petitioner submits that the 2^nd respondent has been raising various disputes against the petitioner. Ext.P2 order of the Kerala State Human Rights Commission is produced in order to show that the complaint of the 2^nd respondent against the church in respect of the selling of the land assigned to

¶32

W.P.(C) No.7088 of 2009

¶33

:2:

¶34

Church was dismissed by the Commission on 5.7.2008. At any rate it is stated that Ext.P3 letter was issued without even issuing a notice to the petitioner pointing out that the said letter, though issued in the letter head of Kerala State Pollution Control Board the signature is affixed “for member Secretary”. Ext.P3 letter shows that the said member Secretary has issued directions against the petitioner, on the basis of complaint from the 2^nd respondent.

¶35

Immediately on receipt of Ext.P3, the petitioner has approached this court and this court has by order dated 5.3.2009 stayed all further proceedings on the basis of Ext.P3. The petitioner also states in this writ petition that the Member Secretary of the Pollution Control Board was not aware of passing of Ext.P3 and therefore it is stated that Ext.P3 is a fabricated document. It is also asserted that there is no pollution caused from the burial ground under the petitioner.

¶36

No counter affidavit is filed by any of the respondents.

¶37

The impugned action is the direction in Ext.P3, which is a letter of first respondent. Petitioner's case is that the said letter which is impugned is not issued by the Member Secretary and at any rate it is issued without notice to the petitioner or without hearing the petitioner. The allegations in the writ petition that Ext.P3 is a

¶38

W.P.(C) No.7088 of 2009

¶39

:3:

¶40

concocted document and the member Secretary has no role in issuing the same is not denied.

¶41

The petitioner cannot be restrained from the activities mentioned therein, by issuing a letter like Ext.P3 and without affording any opportunity of hearing. In the above circumstances, Ext.P3 is quashed.

¶42

Writ petition is allowed.

¶43

sd/-

¶44

P.V.ASHA JUDGE

¶45

rkc

Vicar, St.Thomas Marthoma Church v. Kerala State Pollution Control Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vicar, St.Thomas Marthoma Church v. 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pankajakshi Amma and Others Vs State of Kerala and Others

Sujesh Vs Jithin

M/S.Cadbury India Limited Vs Union of India

Kaniyankandy Govindan Nambiar Vs State of Kerala and Others

Selvan N.M Vs State of Kerala

Jayakumari Vs the Village Officer, Ayiroorppara & Anr.