Allowed

Joseph Chacko Alias Sabu Chacko v. the Environmental Engineer, Kerala State Pollution Control Board

Kerala HC21 Feb 2018WA/412/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed appeals challenging a judgment that denied a deemed licence to a fish market operator due to missing Pollution Control Board consent. The Court ordered the Board to conduct an inspection and issue consent, upon which the Panchayat must renew the licence and recall stop orders.

What did the court decide?

PCB to inspect and issue consent within two weeks; Panchayat to renew licence and recall stop memos once consent is obtained.

Joseph Chacko Alias Sabu Chacko Vs the Environmental… — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.ANTONY DOMINIC & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF FEBRUARY 2018 / 2ND PHALGUNA, 1939

¶5

WA.No. 412 of 2018 IN WPC. 23979/2017

¶6

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 23979/2017 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 04-01-2018

¶7

APPELLANT(S)/PETITIONER IN WP(C)

¶8

JOSEPH CHACKO ALIAS SABU CHACKO S/O CHACKO, AGED 53 YEARS, PUTHUPARAMBIL HOUSE, SACHIVOTHAMAPURAM POST, KURICHY VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.686532.

¶9

BY ADV.SRI.P.KURUVILLA JACOB

¶10

RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS IN WP(C):

¶11

THE ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER, KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, DISTRICT OFFICE, SREENIVASA IYER ROAD, KOTTAYAM.686001.

¶12

KURICHY GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, SACHIVOTHAMAPURAM POST, KURICHY VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. PIN.686532.

¶13

THE SECRETARY KURICHY GRAMA PANCHAYATH, SACHIVOTHAMAPURAM POST, KURICHY VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM, PIN.686532.

¶14

H. AJITH, HEAD CLERK, SACHIVOTHAMAPURAM POST, KURICHY VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM, PIN.686532.

¶15

K.M GOPI S/O MADHAVAN, VAZHAKKALAYIL HOUSE, SACHIVOTHAMAPURAM POST, KURICHY VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM, PIN.686532.

¶16

THE MEDICAL OFFICER-IN-CHARGE, COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTRE, SACHIVOTHAMAPURAM POST, KURICHY VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM, PIN.686532.

¶17

R2 & 3 BY ADV. SRI.T.A.SHAJI (SR.)

¶18

R2 & 3 BY ADV. SRI.ATHUL SHAJI R4,6 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI S KANNAN

¶19

R1 BY SRI. T.NAVEEN SC, KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, R BY SRI.A.X.VARGHESE

¶20

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21-02-2018, ALONG WITH W A NOS 414 & 454 OF 2018 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

JJJ

¶22

ANTONY DOMINIC, C.J. &

¶23

DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, J.

¶24

Writ Appeal Nos. 412, 414 & 454 of 2018

¶25

Dated: 21^st February, 2018

¶26

J U D G M E N T

¶27

Antony Dominic, C.J.

¶28

These writ appeals arise from the common judgment of the learned Single Judge. The issue

¶29

pertains to the functioning of a private fish market, established by the appellant.

¶30

We heard Counsel for the appellant, learned Counsel for the Panchayat, Standing Counsel for the Pollution Control Board and the Counsel appearing for the party respondent in W.A. No.454 of 2018.

¶31

It is the admitted case of the parties that until 2016-2017, the market in question had valid D&O licence from the Panchayat. The appellant applied for its renewal. On the premise that orders were not

¶32

W.A. Nos.412, 414 & 454/2018

¶33

-2-

¶34

passed, it was asserted that the appellant had a deemed licence, as provided under the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 and therefore, the contention raised was that the Panchayat could not have stopped the appellant from functioning the market. However, it is the specific case of the Panchayat that immediately on receipt of the application for renewal of the licence, they had issued a communication calling upon the appellant to produce consent issued by the Pollution Control Board and that the appellant did not comply with that requirement. According to the Panchayat, the application thus made by the appellant being defective, there is no basis for the claim that a deemed license had accrued in favour of the appellant. This was the issue raised in W.P.(C) No.16698 of 2017, against the judgment of which W.A. No. 414 of 2018 is filed.

¶35

W.A. Nos.412, 414 & 454/2018

¶36

-3-

¶37

W.P.(C) No.21961 of 2017, against the

¶38

dismissal of which W.A. No.454 of 2018 is filed, was filed by a neighbouring resident for closure of the market and the ground urged was that the appellant had not obtained licence under Section 222 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act and the Rules framed thereunder and that the market was functioning without obtaining statutory clearance from the Pollution Control Board. In that writ petition, the writ petitioner relied on Ext.P5, a communication issued by the Pollution Control Board to the Panchayat, directing that in the absence of the appellant having obtained necessary consent, the market should not be allowed to function.

¶39

On coming to know about Ext.P5 mentioned above, the appellant filed W.P.(C) No.23979 of 2017, against the judgment of which W.A. No. 412 of 2018 is

¶40

W.A. Nos.412, 414 & 454/2018

¶41

-4-

¶42

filed. In that writ petition, the appellant challenged Ext.P5 mentioned above. It is these three writ petitions which are disposed of by the common judgment under appeal. Accepting the case that the appellant did not have the licence, the learned Single Judge dismissed the petitions.

¶43

Having heard Counsel for the parties, we propose to dispose of these three appeals by this common judgment.

¶44

Insofar as the claim of the appellant that he had a deemed licence is concerned, we feel that the said contention cannot be accepted. Though it is true that the appellant had applied for renewal of the D&O licence for the year 2017-2018 by making application dated 27.03.2017, irrespective of whether the appellant

¶45

was in receipt of the communication from the Panchayat calling upon him to produce consent from

¶46

W.A. Nos.412, 414 & 454/2018

¶47

-5-

¶48

the Pollution Control Board, fact remains that with effect from 17.03.2017 the requirement of consent to operate a fish market was made mandatory by the Pollution Control Board. Therefore, for the Panchayat to consider the application of the appellant for renewal of the licence, it was a statutory requirement that the appellant should have produced such consent. This he has not done. That means he had not submitted a valid application for renewal of the D&O licence. Therefore, he could not have claimed the accrual of a deemed licence also. Evidently, therefore, the appellant cannot also find fault with Ext.P5, the communication issued by the Pollution Control Board, which he challenged in W.P.(C) No.23979 of 2017.

¶49

We are now informed by the appellant that after the judgment of the learned Single Judge, he made an application to the Pollution Control Board for

¶50

W.A. Nos.412, 414 & 454/2018

¶51

-6-

¶52

obtaining necessary consent to operate the fish market. It is also asserted that on the strength of the application made by him, the Pollution Control Board has conducted an inspection of the market.

¶53

In the light of the developments that have taken place, and also the facts we have noted, we dispose of these appeals in the following manner:

¶54

(i) If, as stated by the appellant, the Pollution Control Board has already inspected the market, it shall pass final orders on the application for consent submitted by the appellant, at any rate within two weeks from today.

¶55

(ii) If the Board issues consent to operate, it shall be open to the appellant to produce such consent before the Panchayat and thereupon the Panchayat shall pass final orders on the application submitted by the appellant on 27.03.2017 for renewal of his

¶56

W.A. Nos.412, 414 & 454/2018

¶57

-7-

¶58

D&O licence for the year 2017-2018.

¶59

(iii) In addition to the above, the appellant shall also apply and obtain licence under Section 222 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act and the Rules framed thereunder for operating the fish market.

¶60

(iv) Once the aforesaid statutory requirements are complied with by the appellant, the Panchayat shall recall the stop memos issued and the appellant shall be permitted to operate the fish market in accordance with law.

¶61

Sd/-

¶62

ANTONY DOMINIC, CHIEF JUSTICE.

¶63

Sd/DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, JUDGE.

¶64

jjj 21 /02/2018

Joseph Chacko Alias Sabu Chacko v. the Environmental Engineer, Kerala State Pollution Control Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Joseph Chacko Alias Sabu Chacko v. the Environmental Engineer, 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

T.S. Joy Vs Mrs. Sarada Sampath

Palazhi Mahallu Muslim Jama-Ath Vs M.K.Sadique

N.C.Varghese Vs C.F.Robert, Managing Director, the State Farming Corporation Kerala Ltd.

Icici Bank Vs Sajeev.T.R

Jasmine Regi Vs Manjalloor Grama Pancyayath

Usha Nanthini M. Vs the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority-Cum-Regional Transport Officer