Allowed

A. Muhammed Iqbal v. the District Collector, Malappuram

Kerala HC2 Nov 2018WP(C)/21656/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a petition for police protection, the Court allowed the petitioner's car showroom business but denied operation of the service centre and car wash without specific Pollution Control Board clearance, noting the latter has been shifted elsewhere.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Inspector of Police to afford protection for car sales in the showroom, subject to the petitioner first obtaining clearance from the Pollution Control Board for the service centre.

A. Muhammed Iqbal Vs the District Collector… — Environment and Pollution | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶6

FRIDAY ,THE 02ND DAY OF NOVEMBER 2018 / 11TH KARTHIKA, 1940

¶7

WP(C).No. 21656 of 2018

¶8

PETITIONER:

¶9

A. MUHAMMED IQBAL MANAGING PARTNER, A.M.MOTORS, PAYYANANGADI,TIRUR, RESIDING AT FASNA COTTAGE, POOKKOTTUR (PO), MALAPPURAM DT.,PIN - 676 517

¶10

BY ADV. SHRI.T.K.AJITH KUMAR

¶11

RESPONDENTS:

¶12

1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MALAPPURAM CIVIL STATION, UP HILL (PO), MALAPPURAM DT., PIN-676 505

¶13

2 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE TIRUR POLICE STATION, TIRUR (PO),MALAPPURAM DT, PIN-676 101

¶14

3 THE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD REPRESENTED BY THE ENVIRONMENT ENGINEER, DISTRICT OFFICE, POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, UPHILL (PO), MALAPPURAM DT, PIN-676 505

¶15

4 TIRUR MUNICIPALITY REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, TIRUR (PO), MALAPPURAM DT, PIN-676 101

¶16

5 THE TAHSILDAR

¶17

TIRUR TALUK, TIRUR (PO), MALAPPURAM DT, PIN-676 101

¶18

6 KUNHAPPU, COUNCILOR, TIRUR MUNICIPALITY, CHERATTAYIL HOUSE, KOTT.,ALINCHUVADU, TIRUR (PO), MALAPPURAM DT, PIN-676 101

¶19

WP(C).No. 21656 of 2018

¶20

¶21

7 BABY SALEEM CHERUTHOTTATHIL HOUSE, KOTT., ALINCHUVADU,TIRUR (PO), MALAPPURAM DT, PIN-676 101

¶22

ADDL. 8 CHERIYAMUNDAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, CHERIYAMUNDAM (PO), MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-676106. (ADDL.R8 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 12/10/2018 IN IA.NO.04/2018)

¶23

BY ADVS. SMT.N.DEEPA SRI.P.VENUGOPAL SC TIRUR MUNICIPALITY SRI. T.NAVEEN SC KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

¶24

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02.11.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶25

WP(C).No. 21656 of 2018

¶26

¶27

JUDGMENT

¶28

Devan Ramachandran, J.

¶29

The petitioner claims to be the Managing Partner of a firm by name A.M.Motors at Tirur and he says that the firm is engaged in the sale of vehicles, manufactured by Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. and that they were running a service centre in connection with the show room along with a car wash facility attached to this.

¶30

It appears that certain objections were raised by respondents 6 and 7 complaining that large scale pollution is being caused on account of the car wash facility as also the service centre and that the Pollution Control Board had intervened and inspected the property. The petitioner says that they have done everything possible, as has been instructed to them by the Pollution Control Board and that, therefore, now there is no potential for pollution, particularly because they have shifted the car wash centre from this complex to another area in a different Panchayat, namely the 8^th respondent.

¶31

The petitioner has thus prayed that the obstructions now caused to their activities by respondents 6 and 7 be construed to

¶32

¶33

WP(C).No. 21656 of 2018

¶34

be illegal and therefore, that they are entitled to be protected sufficiently by the Police Authorities.

¶35

The learned counsel appearing for respondents 6 and 7 submits very vehemently that they have not obstructed the functioning of the car show room but that they have severe apprehension about the working of the service centre, even though the car wash facility has been now shifted from there. According to Smt.Deepa, the learned counsel appearing for respondents 6 and 7, the Pollution Control Board, on a visit to the facility, has found that the affluent treatment plant attached to the service centre is not properly functioning and that the petitioner has been instructed to cause modifications or repairs in the said facility so as to make it properly functioning. She says that unless and until the petitioner complies with all the requirements as are mandated by the Pollution Control Board, he cannot be allowed to operate the service centre and that he be given no orders for police protection, which, she says, will be misused by them.

¶36

The learned standing counsel appearing for the Pollution Control Board affirms the submissions of Smt.Deepa and says that the Pollution Control Board has already conducted an inspection in the petitioner's facility and have informed him of certain

¶37

WP(C).No. 21656 of 2018

¶38

¶39

rectifications required to the affluent treatment plant. She says that the petitioner has now informed the Pollution Control Board that such rectifications have been done and that the Pollution Control Board intends to inspect the facility again and to give clearance only if all rectifications are satisfactory.

¶40

On a consideration of the afore submissions and going through the materials on record, we are of the view that until and unless the petitioner is able to get specific clearance from the Pollution Control Board, he will not be entitled to operate the service centre in the facility. However, he will be entitled to operate the car show room, since we are not told that the sale of cars from the said facility would, in any manner, cause any pollution.

¶41

In the afore circumstances, we order this writ petition and direct the second respondent - Inspector of Police to afford adequate and effective protection to the petitioner, if any obstruction is caused to the sale of cars in the show room in the petitioner's facility at the hands of respondents 6 and 7, but we make it clear that under the guise of this order, the petitioner would not be entitled to operate the service centre without first obtaining specific clearance from the Pollution Control Board.

¶42

WP(C).No. 21656 of 2018

¶43

¶44

Needless to say, since the petitioner has already informed this Court that the car wash facility has been now shifted from this area, the petitioner would not be entitled to run such a facility within this area in future and that he will have to confine his activities as regards the car wash in the new facility that he, says, has been set up within the territorial limits of the 8^th respondent - Panchayat.

¶45

Since we have made it very clear that the petitioner cannot operate without the consent of the Pollution Control Board, we direct the competent Authority of the Pollution Control Board to inspect the petitioner's show room and service centre and verify whether all the rectifications as ordered by them have been complied with by the petitioner and if so, to give them necessary clearance to run the service centre, however, under their strict supervision in future.

¶46

This writ petition is thus ordered.

¶47

Sd/- P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE

¶48

stu

¶49

Sd/- DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE

¶50

WP(C).No. 21656 of 2018

¶51

¶52

APPENDIX

¶53

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶54

EXT.P1	TRUE COPY BY THE 3RD	OF THE ORDER DATED 21.06.2016 ISSUED RESPONDENT
EXT.P2	TRUE COPY RENEWAL' D RESPONDENT	OF THE 'INTEGRATED CONSENT TO OPERATE ATED 14.07.2016 ISSUED BY THE 3RD .
EXT.P3	TRUE COPY BY THE 4TH	OF THE ORDER DATED 04.08.2016 ISSUED RESPONDENT
EXT.P4	TRUE COPY SUBMITTED COLLECTOR,	OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 23.11.2017 BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE DISTRICT MALAPPURAM
EXT.P5	TRUE COPY THE 5TH RE MALAPPURAM	OF THE LETTER DATED 16.12.2017 SENT BY SPONDENT TO THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, EXPLAINING THE STEPS TAKEN BY HIM
EXT.P6	TRUE COPY BY THE 3RD	OF THE REPORT DATED 07.02.2018, ISSUED RESPONDENT
EXT.P7	TRUE COPY SUBMITTED RESPONDENT	OF THE PETITION DATED 18.06.2018 BY THE PETITIONER, BEFORE THE 2ND .
EXHIBIT	P8 TRUE COPY RENEWAL DA	OF THE INTEGRATED CONSENT TO OPERATE- TED 28.6.2018
EXHIBIT	P9 TRUE COPY 18 FOR SAL	OF THE D & O LICENCE VIDE NO 139/2017- ES OF MARUTI CARS.
EXHIBIT	P10 TRUE COPY 18 FOR CAR	OF THE D & O LICENCE VIDE NO 156/2018- BODY REPAIRING AND SERVICE
EXHIBIT	P11 TRUE COPY RESPONDENT	OF THE RECEIPTS ISSUED BY THE 4TH MUNICIPALITY FOR THE LICENSE FEE.
EXHIBIT	P12 TRUE COPY MR.P.SADAR	OF THE RECEIPT GIVEN BY THE CONTRACTOR UTHEEN ON 15.1.2018

¶55

WP(C).No. 21656 of 2018

¶56

¶57

EXHIBIT	P13 TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT EXECUTED ON 1.1.2016 BETWEEN MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LIMITED AND THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT	P14 TRUE COPY OF THE E-MAIL CONVERSATION BETWEEN THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER (SERVICE) MR.NANDAKUMAR AND MR.GOVIDA RAJA K., TERRITORY SERVICE MANAGER AT THE REGIONAL OFFICE OF THE MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LIMITED,KOCHI.
EXHIBIT	P15 PHOTOGRAPH OF THE SERVICE AREA OF THE VEHICLES AT A.M.MOTORS, PAYYANANGADI, TIRUR.
EXHIBIT	P16 PHOTOGRAPH SHOWING THE WASTE OIL DRAINING FROM THE CAR ENGINE.
EXHIBIT	P17 PHOTOGRAPH OF THE IRON DRUMS USED FOR STORING WASTE OIL.
EXHIBIT	P18 TRUE COPY OF THE MANIFEST FOR HAZARDOUS AND OTHER WASTE DATED 10.7.2018 ISSUED BY APJ REFINERIES PVT LTD, KANJIKODE PALAKKAD TO THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT	P19 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 21.6.2016 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT	P20 PHOTOGRAPH OF THE PVC SEPTIC TANK INSTALLED FOR COLLECTING THE WASTE WATER FROM THE WASH BASIN.
EXHIBIT	P21 PHOTOGRAPH OF THE WASTE WATER TREATMENT PLANT.
EXHIBIT	P22 PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE 5000 LITERS PVC TANK WHICH IS COLLECTING THE TREATED WATER.
EXHIBIT	P23 TRUE COPY OF THE D & O LICENCE DATED 22.11.2011 ISSUED BY CHERIYAMUNDAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH.
EXHIBIT	P24 TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 21.4.2017 IN WPC 14222/2017
EXHIBIT	P25 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 20.3.2018 PASSED BY THE SECRETARY CHERIYAMUNDAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT.
EXHIBIT	P26 TRUE COPY OF THE INTEGRATED CONSENT TO OPERATE- RENEWAL CERTIFICATE DATED 16.1.2018 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

¶58

WP(C).No. 21656 of 2018

¶59

¶60

RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶61

ANNEXURE R3	(a) TRUE COPY OF THE TO THE PETITIONER	CONSENT TO OPERATE ISSUED S UNIT
ANNEXURE R3	(b) TRUE COPY OF THE PETITIONER DATED	AFFIDAVIT OF THE 28.3.2016
ANNEXURE R3	(c ) TRUE COPY OF THE OPERATE-RENEWAL D THE UNIT.	INTEGRATED CONSENT TO ATED 28.6.2018 ISSUED TO
ANNEXURE R3	(d) TRUE COPY OF THE MANIFEST DATED 14 UNIT.	LATEST HAZARDOUS WASTE .6.2018 SUBMITTED BY THE
ANNEXURE R3	(e) TRUE COPY OF THE ISSUED TO THE UNI	NOTICE DATED 24.9.2018 T.
ANNEXURE R3	(f) TRUE COPY OF THE WELL WATER SAMPLE	ANALYSIS REPORT OF THE S DATED 28.9.2018
EXHIBIT R6	(a) TRUE COPY OF THE SUBMITTED BY THE SCIENTISTS DATED	ANALYTICAL REPORT SENIOR ENVIRONMENTAL 15.6.2016
EXHIBIT R6	(b) TRUE COPY OF THE REVENUE DIVISIONA COLLECTOR, DATED	LETTER ISSUED BY THE L OFFICER TO THE DISTRICT 30.7.2016
EXHIBIT R6	(c) TRUE COPY OF THE GROUND WATER DEPA COLLECTOR, DATED	LETTER ISSUED BY THE RTMENT TO DISTRICT 11.11.2016
EXHIBIT R6	(d) TRUE COPY OF THE DISTRICT COLLECTO	DECISION TAKEN BY THE R DATED 12.6.2017
EXHIBIT R6	(e) COPY OF THE PHOTO ACTUAL SITUATES O	GRAPHS WHICH SHOWS THE F THE PETITIONERS PROPERTY.
EXHIBIT R6	(f) TRUE COPY OF THE SENIOR ENVIRONMEN ENVIRONMENTAL ENG	ANALYTICAL REPORT FORM THE TAL SCIENTIST TO THE INEER DATED 7.2.2018

¶62

WP(C).No. 21656 of 2018

¶63

¶64

EXHIBIT R6 (g)

¶65

TRUE CD WHICH SHOWS THE ACTUAL WORKING OF THE TREATMENT PLANT SAID TO BE MADE BY THE PETITIONER.

¶66

//TRUE COPY//

¶67

P.A TO JUDGE.

A. Muhammed Iqbal v. the District Collector, Malappuram

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A. Muhammed Iqbal v. the District Collector, Malappuram

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

Chirakkal Kovilakam Devaswoms - Rep. by Its Executive Officer Vs State of Kerala - Rep. by Secretary to Revenue (Devaswoms) Department

Komalam Vs State of Kerala

Safexpress Pvt.Ltd. Vs State of Kerala

Sreekumar.K Vs the Managing Director

Valsamma Mathew Vs State of Kerala

N.Siddque Vs the District Collector