Allowed

Sasidharan v. Balaramapuram Grama Panchayath

Kerala HC5 Jun 2017WP(C)/6874/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed the writ petition interdicting the operation of an illegal spray painting workshop but denied a prayer for D&O licence consideration, directing the Panchayath to ensure regulatory compliance and stating the businessman must approach authorities for permissions.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed as of now interdicting the operation of the workshop by the 5th respondent. Panchayath directed to ensure no workshop is carried on without permissions and sanctions.

Sasidharan Vs Balaramapuram Grama Panchayath — 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

MONDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF JUNE 2017/15TH JYAISHTA, 1939

¶5

WP(C).No. 6874 of 2016 (H)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

SASIDHARAN, S/O. VELLUKUTTY,AGED 61 YEARS, ANILA NIVAS, CHIRATHALAVILAKOM, PARUTHICHALKONAM, BALARAMAPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.GEORGE VARGHESE(PERUMPALLIKUTTIYIL) SRI.A.R.DILEEP SRI.MANU SEBASTIAN SRI.P.J.JOE PAUL

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. BALARAMAPURAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH BALARAMAPURAM, ATHIYANNOOR, NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,

¶11

REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY 695 501

¶12

2. SECRETARY, BALARAMAPURAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT, BALARAMAPURAM, ATHIYANNOOR, NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 501

¶13

3. HEALTH INSPECTOR, BALARAMAPURAM, ATHIYANNOOR, NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 121 4. POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, DISTRICT OFFICE, PLAMOODU JUNCTION, PATTOM P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 004 5. MOHANAN PROPRIETOR OF SPRAY PAINTING WORKSHOP, KATTAKADA ROAD, BALARAMAPURAM 695 501 R1,R2 BY ADV. SRI.C.J.JOY, SC, R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT RAJI T BHASKER R4 BY ADVS. SRI. T.NAVEEN SC, R5 BY ADVS. SRI.G.P.SHINOD SRI.RAM MOHAN.G. SRI.GOVIND PADMANAABHAN SRI.AJIT G.ANJARLEKAR

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05-06-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

K.V.

¶16

WP(C).No. 6874 of 2016 (H)

¶17

APPENDIX

¶18

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶19

EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE ESTABLISHMENT RUN BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT

¶20

EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF MEDICAL RECORDS OF TWO SUCH RESIDENTS

¶21

EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF COMPLAINT BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT AND ITS ACKNOWLEDGMENT

¶22

EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF COMPLAINT BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF COMPLAINT BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT AND ITS ACKNOWLEDGMENT

¶23

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS

¶24

R2(A) TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 18/3/2016 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 5TH RESPONDENT.

¶25

R2(B) TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION RECEIVED FROM THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶26

R2(C) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 16/3/2017 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 5TH RESPONDENT.

¶27

R2(D) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER 16/3/2017 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, BALARAMAPURAM POLICE STATION.

¶28

R2(E) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 7/4/2017 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 5TH RESPONDENT INFORMING HIM ABOVE THE REJECTION OF EXT R5(A)APPLICATION FOR LICENCE.

¶29

R5(A) A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 21/3/2017 FOR LICENCE SUBMITTED BY THE FIFTH RESPONDENT TO THE BALARAMAPURAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH.

/TRUE COPY/

P.A.TO JUDGE

K.V.

K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J

W.P(C) No. 6874 of 2016

¶36

¶37

Dated this the 05^th day of June, 2017 J U D G M E N T

¶38

The petitioner was aggrieved by the spray painting

¶39

workshop conducted by the 5^th respondent. The petitioner

¶40

alleges that there was no consent obtained from the 3^rd and

¶41

4^th respondents, nor was a D& O license issued by the 2^nd respondent. The 5^th respondent's spray painting workshop is alleged to be illegal. The contention raised by the petitioner

¶42

has been accepted by the Panchayath in its statement dated

¶43

08.06.2016.

¶44

The Panchayath has produced the stop memo

¶45

issued by it as Ext.R2(a). The 5^th respondent then filed Ext.R5

¶46

(a) application for D&O licence. In fact, before applying for

¶47

the D&O licence, the 5^th respondent would have to apply for

¶48

establishment of an industry under Section 233 of the Kerala

¶49

WPC.No.6874/2016

¶50

: 2 :

¶51

Panchayath Raj Act, 1994.

¶52

The learned Counsel for the 5^th respondent prays

¶53

that the application for D&O licence be directed to be considered. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner objects to such prayer insofar as the writ petition being not filed by the respondent. The 5^th respondent is disabled in seeking such prayer in a writ petition filed against the illegal running of a spray painting workshop. The objection of the petitioner has to be accepted.

¶54

Further, it is to be noticed that there could be no D&O Licence issued by the Panchayath without first the 5^th respondent approaching the Panchayath under Section 233 for establishment of a workshop. Such an application can be filed

¶55

only after obtaining a consent from the 4^th respondent Pollution Control Board. In such circumstance, the prayer of

¶56

the 5^th respondent has to be rejected.

¶57

WPC.No.6874/2016

¶58

: 3 :

¶59

By an interim order dated 01.03.2017 this Court

¶60

had directed the respondent Panchayath to implement the stop

¶61

memo. It is submitted that it has been implemented and now,

¶62

the workshop is not functioning. In such circumstances, the respondent Panchayath is directed to ensure that no workshop

¶63

is carried on without the permissions and sanctions as provided under the various enactments. The 5^th respondent would be left the remedy to approach the various authorities for such sanctions and permissions, in which event, the writ petitioner would also be heard by the Panchayath and the Pollution Control Board if such applications are filed.

¶64

With the above reservation, writ petition would

¶65

stand allowed as of now interdicts the operation of the workshop by the 5^th respondent.

¶66

jma

¶67

Sd/(K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE) //true copy// P.A to Judge

Sasidharan v. Balaramapuram Grama Panchayath

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sasidharan v. Balaramapuram Grama Panchayath

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

Jaimol Saju Vs Sindhu P.Joseph

Fr. Thomas.a.Achandy Vs Ahamed Sageer

M.M. Aboobacker Vs the District Collector

Eldho Vs State of Kerala and Others

Firos Thampi Vs State of Kerala

Saji .C.S Vs State of Kerala