Disposed

K.Y.Rafeeq v. the Kerala State Pollution Control Board

Kerala HC6 Jun 2017WP(C)/5177/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of a writ petition regarding metal crusher units. It directed the fourth respondent not to resume operations pending compliance with law and PCBCirculars, while directing the petitioner to be impleaded in a pending petition against the fifth respondent.

What did the court decide?

Directed 4th respondent not to resume crusher unit unless per law and PCBCirculars; petitioner to be impleaded in pending petition against 5th respondent.

K.Y.Rafeeq Vs the Kerala State Pollution Control… — Environment and Pollution | Kerala HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF JUNE 2017/16TH JYAISHTA, 1939

¶5

WP(C).No. 5177 of 2010 (V)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

K.Y.RAFEEQ, KADAVIL HOUSE, CHALAKKAL, MARAMBILLY P.O., ALUVA - 7, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.N.RAGHURAJ SMT.K.AMMINIKUTTY

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. THE KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, PATTOM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 004, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN.

¶11

2. THE CHAIRMAN,

¶12

THE KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶13

3. THE CHIEF ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER, KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, REGIONAL OFFICE, ERNAKULAM.

¶14

4. M/S.PUTHENPURAYIL CRUSHERS, REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR, T.K.I AHAMMED SHEREEF CHALAKKAL, MARAMPILLY P.O., ALUVA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶15

5. M/S.KADAVIL ENTERPRISES, REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR, K.M.PACKO, KADAVIL HOUSE, CHALAKKAL, MARAMPILLY P.O., ALUVA, ERNAKULAM

¶16

R1-R3 BY ADVS. SRI. T.NAVEEN SC, SRI.M.K.CHANDRA MOHANDAS,SC

¶17

R4 BY ADV. SRI.S.SREEKUMAR

¶18

R5 BY ADVS. SRI.DINESH R.SHENOY SRI.G.HARIKRISHNAN (TRIPUNITHURA) SRI.MAHESH MENON

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06-06-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

K.V.

¶21

WPC 5177 OF 2010:

¶22

APPENDIX

¶23

PETITIONERS EXHIBITS:

¶24

P1: TRUE PHOTO COPY OF THE SKETCH SHOWING THE LIE AND LOCATION OF THE RESIDENCE OF THE PETITIONER AND THE METAL CRUSHER UNITS OF THE 4TH AND 5TH RESPONDENT.

¶25

P2; TRUE PHOTO COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 5/11/2009 IN WPC NO 27657/09 (B)

¶26

P3: TRUE PHOTO COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 12.12.2009 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶27

P4; TRUE PHOTO COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER.

¶28

P5: TRUE PHOTO COPY OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

¶29

P6; TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE COMMUNICATION FROM THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE MEMBER SECRETARY OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 4/10/2008.

¶30

P7: TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE GUIDELINES ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT ON 26/10/1991.

¶31

P8; TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE CIRCULAR BEARING DATED 30/4/1998.

¶32

P9: TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE OFFICE ORDER DATED 17/10/2007 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶33

P10; TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER DATED 7/01/2010 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶34

P11: TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE SCAN REPORT.

¶35

P11(A) TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE DOCTOR'S PRESCRIPTION.

¶36

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS NIL

/TRUE COPY/

P.S.TO JUDGE

K.V.

K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.

¶41

====================== W.P.(C) No.5177 of 2010 - V

¶42

=========================== Dated this the 06^th day of June, 2017

¶43

Judgment

¶44

The petitioner was aggrieved with the conduct of

¶45

two metal crusher units by the respondents 4 and 5 respectively. With respect to the 4^th respondent, even at the time of admission it was submitted that there was a stop memo issued by the Panchayath and the same is not functioning. Hence a status quo order was directed.

¶46

With respect to the 5^th respondent's crusher

¶47

unit it is submitted by the learned Counsel appearing for the 5^th respondent that another writ petition was filed by another person in W.P.(C) No.29528 of 2009 and it is still pending before this Court. If the petitioner is still aggrieved, he can definitely get impleaded in that writ petition. The contentions with respect to the petitioner as against the 5^th respondent crusher unit will be left open to be considered then.

¶48

¶49

W.P.(C) No.5177 of 2010

¶50

As far as the 4^th respondent is concerned, there

¶51

was an interim order from 17.02.2010, directing status quo

¶52

to be maintained with respect to the stop memo issued and there is no functioning of the unit also. The 4^th respondent does not have a contention otherwise. Hence the 4^th respondent shall not resume the crusher unit unless in accordance with law and also as per the circulars issued by the Pollution Control Board.

¶53

The writ petition would stand disposed of with liberty as reserved herein above. No costs.

¶54

Sd/- K.VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE

¶55

SB/07/06/2017

K.Y.Rafeeq v. the Kerala State Pollution Control Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Y.Rafeeq v. the 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Eldho Vs State of Kerala and Others

Firos Thampi Vs State of Kerala

Sasidharan Vs Balaramapuram Grama Panchayath

Jaffer Vs Palakkad Municipality

Gigi Mathew Vs State of Kerala

Jose Vs Paralam Grama Panchayat