Dismissed

Smt.P.Thankakutty v. K.Sugatha Kumari

Kerala HC10 Jul 2018WA/1256/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal against an appellate order remitting a consent case to the PCB due to licensee's death. Court directed PCB to decide on merits before the successor applies online, sparing interference on other grounds.

What did the court decide?

Direction issued to the Kerala State Pollution Control Board to take a decision on merits after hearing the applicant and the objector.

Smt.P.Thankakutty Vs K.Sugatha Kumari — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR.HRISHIKESH ROY

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR

¶6

TUESDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF JULY 2018 / 19TH ASHADHA, 1940

¶7

WA.No. 1256 of 2017 IN WPC. 8619/2008

¶8

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 8619/2008 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 20-03-2017

¶9

APPELLANT(S)/ADDITIONAL 6TH RESPONDENT IN WPC NO.8649/2008

¶10

SMT.P.THANKAKUTTY W/O.LATE SUDHAKARAN, CHARUVILA, PUTHEN VEEDU, UCHAKKADA, PAYATTUVILA P.O., NEYYATTINKARA TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT 695 501.

¶11

BY ADVS.SRI.VADAKARA V.V.N.MENON

¶12

SRI.N.S.GOPAKUMAR

¶13

RESPONDENT(S)/WRIT PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS NOS1,2,4,5&7 IN WPC:

¶14

K.SUGATHA KUMARI W/O.RAVEENDRAN, KANJIRAM NINNA RAVIL BHAVAN,, CHOWARA, KOTTUKAL VILLAGE, NEYYATTINKARA TALUK,, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.

¶15

THE AIR APPELLATE AUTHORITY THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, POOJAPPURA, REP. BY ITS, SECRETARY

¶16

THE DISTRICT ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER, KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD,TC.NO.9/1858,, KOCHAR ROAD, SASTHAMANGALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 004.

¶17

KERALA STATE POLLUTION BOARD

¶18

REPRESENTED BY ITS MEMBER SECRETARY,

¶19

PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 004.

¶20

KOTTUKAL GRAMA PANCHAYAT,

¶21

KOTTUKAL P.O., NEYYATTINKARA TALUK,,

¶22

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY 695 501.

¶23

WA.1256/17

¶24

¶25

SRI.PRABHAKARAN S/O.KRISHNAN NADAR, CHARUVILA PUTHEN VEEDU, UCHAKKADA, PAYATTUVILA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, 695 001.

¶26

R1 BY ADV. SRI.V.G.ARUN (K/795/2004) R1 BY ADV. SRI.K.R.SYAM SEKHAR R1 BY ADV. SMT.V.JAYA RAGI R1 BY ADV. SMT.INDULEKHA JOSEPH R1 BY ADV. SRI.NEERAJ NARAYAN R BY SRI.MANZOOR ALI R BY SRI.R.T.PRADEEP R3,4 BY ADV. SRI. T.NAVEEN SC, KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD,

¶27

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10-07-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶28

HRISHIKESH ROY, Ag C.J. & A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, J.

¶29

W.A.No.1256 of 2017 -----------------------------------------------------Dated this the 10^th day of July, 2018

¶30

JUDGMENT

¶31

Hrishikesh Roy, Ag C.J.

¶32

The 6^th respondent in the writ petition, Smt.P.Thankakutty, has filed this appeal to challenge the judgment dated 20.3.2017 in the W.P(C).8619/08. She is the wife of K.Sudhakaran, the third respondent in the writ petition, who was the proprietor of a flour mill by the name 'Dhanya Floor Mill' at Chowara, Neyyattinkara Taluk. In the writ petition, the challenge is against Ext.P6 order of the Air Appellate Authority, Thiruvananthapuram, where the licensee was in appeal. That appeal was filed under Section 31 of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981, to challenge the Ext.P3 order dated 30.6.2004 of the Kerala State Pollution Control Board, because the consent to operate the mill was denied.

¶33

The appellate authority, under the Ext.P6 order, considered the circumstances of the case, but was unable to reach a definite conclusion on the correctness of the negative decision. Thus, the impugned order was set aside and the matter was remitted back to the Pollution Control Board for fresh disposal, after due inspection with notice to the licensee K.Sudhakaran, the third respondent in the writ petition.

¶34

¶35

WA.1256/17

¶36

Aggrieved by the Ext.P6 decision of the Air Appellate Authority, one K.Sugatha Kumari, residing within the neighbourhood of the flour mill, filed the writ proceeding and it came to light during the said proceeding that the licensee K.Sudhakaran had expired. The learned Judge accordingly said that since the licensee had expired, the licence for the flour mill cannot inure to the benefit of anyone else, including his wife. Thus it was observed that if the wife intends to operate the flour mill, she cannot do so on the strength of Ext.P6 order, but will have to apply fresh and obtain licence in her own name as the flour mill was being operated exclusively in the name of the third respondent, until he died. With such observation, the writ petition was closed, granting liberty to the aggrieved party to pursue her remedies in the writ proceeding.

¶37

Representing the appellant/6^th respondent, Sri.V.V.N.Menon, the learned counsel, submits that when the licensee dies, it is normal for the authorities to issue licence to the successor in order to enable the family to carry on the business. In this context, Sri.T.Naveen, the learned counsel for the PCB, submits that the wife has to apply online for consent of the PCB, but the same is not yet done.

¶38

Reacting to the above projection from the PCB counsel, Sri.V.V.N.Menon, on behalf of the appellant as the wife of the original licensee, submits that his client will now apply online for the consent of the PCB and he prays for a direction that her application be considered on merits by the authority.

¶39

¶40

WA.1256/17

¶41

Having considered the above, direction is issued to the PCB to take a decision on merit, after hearing not only the applicant but also the objector, the writ petitioner. Except to this limited extent, we do not interfere with the impugned judgment of the learned single Judge. The writ appeal is thus disposed of accordingly.

¶42

The Registry should post W.P(C).3638/17, before the appropriate Bench as per roster.

¶43

Sd/HRISHIKESH ROY ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE

¶44

Sd/A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR

¶45

JUDGE

¶46

kkb.

Smt.P.Thankakutty v. K.Sugatha Kumari

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt.P.Thankakutty v. K.Sugatha Kumari

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

Anlet Jou U.A Vs State of Kerala

Dr Raghavan Vs Asokan

Dr. Ligi George Vs Authorized Officer, Uco Bank

State of Kerala Vs the Director, M. Dit Polytechnic College

State of Kerala Vs Vadakkekkara Hindu Madha Dharma Paripalana Sabha

State of Kerala Vs M.G.M.Polytechnic College, Pampakuda