Disposed

P.R.Binu v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC7 Mar 2017WP(C)/11079/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court disposed of a writ petition filed by school representatives fearing pollution from a proposed waste disposal plant. The court held that keeping an interim order indefinitely is unjustified if pollution can be prevented via statutory compliance. It directed the municipality to obtain expert agency views and ensure no pollution before proceeding.

What did the court decide?

Respondents 2 and 3 directed to ensure the proposal is pursued only after obtaining views of expert agencies and ensuring no pollution is caused.

P.R.Binu Vs State of Kerala — Environment and Pollution | Kerala HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF MARCH 2017/16TH PHALGUNA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 11079 of 2010 (H) ----------------------------

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

------------ 1.	- P.R.BINU, PRINCIPAL,,SREE NARAYANA TRUSTS, CENTRAL SCHOOL, SHORNOR-1 PALAKKAD.
2.	M.MURALI PARENT TEACHER ASSOCIATIONS, SREE NARAYANA TRUSTS, CENTRAL SCHOOL, SHORNOR-1 PALAKKAD.
3.	K.RADHA KRISHNAN RADIKHA, NIVAS, PARTHIPARA, SHORNOR-1
	BY ADVS.SRI.A.N.RAJAN BABU SRI.A.R.EASWAR LAL SRI.P.GOPALAKRISHNAN (MVA)
RESPONDENT(S ------------	): --
1.	STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM.
2.	SHORNUR MUNICIPALITY PB NO.10 REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, SHORNOR, PALAKKAD -21
3.	SECRETARY SHORNOR MUNICIPALITY, SHORNOR, PALAKKAD.
4.	KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD TRIVANDRUM.
5.	SENIOR ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, PALAKKAD.
6.	VILLAGE OFFICER SHORNOR II OTTAPALAM TALUK.
	BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. MABLE C. KURIAN R4 BY ADV. SMT.P.K.RADHIKA
	R4 & 5 BY ADV. SRI.M.K.CHANDRAMOHAN DAS,SC,POLL.C.BOAR
	R4 & 5 BY ADV. SRI. M.AJAY, SC, KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

¶8

W.P.(C).NO.11079 OF 2010

¶9

R2 & 3 BY ADV. SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN R2 &3 BY ADV. SRI.K.HARIDASAN R2 & 3 BY ADV. SRI.MANSOOR.B.H. R4 & 5 BY ADV. SRI. T.NAVEEN SC, KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD,

¶10

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 0703-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶11

W.P.(C).11079 OF 2010

¶12

APPENDIX

¶13

PETITIONERS EXHIBITS:-

¶14

EXHIBIT P1:COPY OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY VILLAGE OFFICER DATED 23.07.09 SITE NOT SUITABLE FOR PLANT.

¶15

EXHIBIT P2:COPY OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY DISTRICT OFFICER OF THE GROUND WATER DEPARTMENT DATED 20/8/07

¶16

EXHIBIT P3:COPY OF THE CONDITIONS OF THE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD.

¶17

EXHIBIT P4:COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER TO 3RD RESPONDENT.

¶18

EXHIBIT P5:COPY OF THE REPORT OF 5TH RESPONDENT SENT TO 3RD RESPONDENT.

¶19

RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS:

¶20

EXHIBIT R5(A):COPY OF THE LETTER NO.PCB/PLKD/MSW 3/2001 DATED 16.7.2007

¶21

EXHIBIT R5(B):COPY OF NOC ISSUED BY THE BOARD DATED 26.6.2009.

¶22

ANNEXURE R2(A):COPY OF THE ORDER NO.2230/2007/LSGD, DATED 16//2007. (SANCTION FOR ACQAUIRING 10.82 ACRES OF PROPERTY.

¶23

ANNEXURE R2(B):COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE MINUTES DATED 5/3/2009, COVENANTED ON 5/3/2009 UNDER THE CHAIRMANSHIP OF THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR.

¶24

ANNEXURE R2(C):COPY OF THE PERMISSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER, KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, PALAKKAD DATED 26.6.2009.

/TRUE COPY/

P.A. TO JUDGE

SKV

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, J

¶29

=================== W.P.(C). No.11079 2010

¶30

======================= Dated this the 7^th day of March, 2017

¶31

JUDGMENT

¶32

The petitioners 1 and 2 assert to be the Principal and the office bearer of the parent teacher association respectively,of a school by name Sree Narayana Trusts Central School, Shornur, Palakkad. They have approached this court under the apprehension that a waste disposal plant is proposed very close to the school and fearing that such a disposal plant would cause extreme inconvenience and prejudice to the school and their students. I see that the petitioners are asserting on the strength of Exts.P1 to P3 that the area now identified by the Authorities for constructing the waste disposal plant, is unsuitable for such purpose.

¶33

I have heard Mr. A.N. Rajan Babu learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing counsel for respondents 2, 3 4 and 5 and the learned Government appearing for respondents 1 and 6.

¶34

W.P.(C). No.11079 of 2010 2

¶35

The petitioners have approached this Court when a proposal was mooted by the Municipality for establishment of a waste disposal plant close to the school premises. They allege that the ground water department has in Ext.P2 very clearly found that if a waste disposal unit is operated in that area it would cause pollution of the wells and to the water system of the area since the area proposed is an elevated one.

¶36

They also rely on Ext.P1 which is a report said to have been issued by the Village Officer indicating the unsuitable nature of the land.

¶37

The learned Standing Counsel for the municipality refutes all these contentions of the petitioners on the ground that that the writ petition is premature since the unit has not been established and that it is only a proposal to establish the Unit, based on consideration of various factors. He argues that the land is not unsuitable and that a waste disposal plant will be installed only after complying with all the necessary and applicable regulations to ensure that there is no pollution whatsoever-air, water or smell. He relies on Ext.R2(b) minutes

¶38

W.P.(C). No.11079 of 2010 3

¶39

of a committee that was chaired by the District Collector, Palakkad wherein the views of the Municipality, the Electricity Board, the Public Works Department, the Town Planner, Geological Assistant, District Medical Officer, Health Inspector and others were taken for the construction of the said plant. He points out that all these authorities have said that the land can be utilized for the purpose of the plant provided all precautions and measures are adopted, as mandated by the various statutes and regulations, to ensure that there is no pollution at all. He says that this can be done if all the applicable regulations are followed and he asserts that the Municipality will do all that is required to ensure that there is no pollution by following all applicable statutes and other regulations in its letter and spirit.

¶40

I see, as of now, there is only a proposal to establish the plan. No steps have been taken in furtherance of that proposal, presumably because this Court has granted an interim order as early as in the year 2010 against the establishment of any such waste disposal unit. I do not think

¶41

W.P.(C). No.11079 of 2010 4

¶42

it is justified to keep this interim order continued for ever. I say this because the only objection that the petitioners can have against the establishment of that unit is that it will cause air, water or such other pollution. If it can be ensured by compliance of the various statutes and regulations that there is no pollution of any nature, then obviously there is no need to interdict establishment of the unit since I must also bear in

¶43

mind that waste disposal is of a primary public importance specially in urban areas.

¶44

I have to weigh the syllogistic and rival claims of persons who fear pollution and the genuine public requirement on the other when issues relating to waste disposal is concerned. I am not saying that one interest out weighs the other. I am certain that the apprehension of the citizens will also have to be allayed by the authorities before such projects are proposed and conceded. I am sure that the competent Authorities, the Municipalities as also the other statutory Authorities would rise to the occasion and take such action and such measures as are absolutely requisite and

¶45

W.P.(C). No.11079 of 2010 5

¶46

desirable to ensure that the establishment of a waste disposal plant will not cause any pollution or inconvenience to the citizenry and least of all, to the little children studying in the school.

¶47

I, therefore, dispose of this writ petition directing respondents 2 and 3, who are the competent officers of the Municipality, to ensure that the proposal for the waste disposal unit is pursued only after obtaining the views of the expert agencies in the area viz., Pollution Control Board, District Medical Officer, the Ground Water Department and such other and after ensuring that the construction or operation of such Unit will not cause any pollution to the detriment of the neighbours or other citizens.

¶48

This writ petition is ordered as above.

¶49

Sd/DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, JUDGE

¶50

SKV

P.R.Binu v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.R.Binu v. State of Kerala

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

M/S.Integrated Eco Resorts and Farms Pvt. Vs State of Kerala and Others

Wilfred Culas Vs Dist.Collector, Tvm

Reju Joseph Vs Thalappalam Grama Panchayath

Sandhya Perera Vs Mahatma Gandhi University

V.K.Radhamony Vs Managing Director

Dr.P.v.Madusoodhanan Vs State of Kerala