Disposed

Nazar v. the Sub Inspector of Police

Kerala HC4 Jun 2019WP(C)/14180/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court directed the police to remove obstruction faced by the petitioner while implementing pollution control measures directed by the Board. The court clarified that commencement of the industry depends on a Consent to Operate issued after a trial run, subject to ongoing inspections.

What did the court decide?

Directed the police to remove any obstruction faced by the petitioner while implementing Board-directed pollution measures.

Nazar Vs the Sub Inspector of Police — Environment and Pollution | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN

¶6

TUESDAY, THE 04TH DAY OF JUNE 2019 / 14TH JYAISHTA, 1941

¶7

W.P(C).No.14180 of 2019

¶8

PETITIONER/S:

¶9

1 NAZAR, AGED 57 YEARS, ERAVALAPPIL, PUTHUMANASSERY, PAVARATTI P.O., THRISSUR-680 507

¶10

2 JOHNSON P.M., S/O. MATHAI, PULIKKOTTIL VEEDU (MOONUPURA), KANDANISSERY P.O., THRISSUR

¶11

BY ADVS. SRI.K.B.GANGESH SMT.ATHIRA A.MENON SMT.SMITHA CHATHANARAMBATH SRI.AMAL S KUMAR

¶12

RESPONDENT/S:

¶13

1 THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHALISSERY POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD-679 536.

¶14

2 CHALISSERY GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY, CHALISSERY, PALAKKAD-679 536.

¶15

3 THE ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER, DISTRICT OFFICER, KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, PALAKKAD-678 001

¶16

4 SANOJ, KUTTITHARA VEEDU, PERUMANNUR P.O., CHALISSERY, PALAKKAD-679 536

¶17

5 JNANASEKHARAN, KUTTITHARA VEEDU, PERUMANNUR P.O., CHALISSERY, PALAKKAD-679 536.

¶18

- 2 -

¶19

WP(C).No.14180 of 2019

¶20

6 PETER, KANDATHIPARAMABIL VEEDU, PERUMANNUR P.O., CHALISSERY, PALAKKAD-679 536

¶21

7 BINU, THUMBARABIL VEEDU, PERUMANNUR P.O., CHALISSERY, PALAKKAD-679 536

¶22

R2 BY ADV. SRI.BINOY VASUDEVAN

¶23

OTHER PRESENT:

¶24

SR.GP.P.P.THAJUDHEEN FOR R1 STANDING COUNSEL SRI.T.NAVEEN FOR R3

¶25

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04.06.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶26

WP(C).No.14180 of 2019

¶27

- 3 -

¶28

JUDGMENT

¶29

Vinod Chandran, J.

¶30

The petitioner is before this Court alleging obstruction on the part of the party respondents against the implementation of the conditions as specified by the Kerala State Pollution Control Board [for brevity "Board"] in Exhibits P9 and P10.

¶31

2. The petitioner, admittedly, had been continuing a plastic recycling unit from 1987 onwards with a D&O Licence obtained from the Panchayat. The current valid one is produced at Exhibit P1. There were allegations of pollution raised by the local people; on which the Panchayat is said to have carried out an inspection and issued Exhibit P6 stop memo. The stop memo is still in force. The petitioner obviously had not obtained any Consent to Establish or Operate from the Board. However, now the petitioner has approached the Board and the Board has directed certain measures to be implemented to avoid pollution from the industry. When attempts were made to bring in such measures there was obstruction caused, is the case of the petitioner.

¶32

WP(C).No.14180 of 2019 - 4 -

¶33

3. Despite notice to the party respondents, none appear. The learned Counsel for the Panchayat appears and submits that the stop memo is still in force and if the Board grants Consent to Operate, the Panchayat would have no objection subject only to the industry not causing any further pollution. The learned Standing Counsel for the Board submits that an effective inspection could be carried out only after the measures directed are carried out and trial run is carried out in the industry.

¶34

4. In the above circumstances, we are of the opinion that the petitioner should be allowed to implement the measures for containing the pollution as suggested by the Board. However, the same shall not be taken as a direction to commence the industry, which would depend on the Consent to Operate as decided by the Board on such conditions specified. In such circumstances, if obstruction is caused to the implementation of the conditions directed by the Board, the police would interfere and remove such obstruction. We reiterate that the commencement shall be only if and after a Consent to Operate is issued by the Board, which shall also be after a trial run of the industry conducted. We make it clear that even if the petitioner commences the establishment on the strength of

¶35

WP(C).No.14180 of 2019 - 5 -

¶36

the Consent to Operate, any of the locals would be entitled to raise complaint of pollution caused before the Panchayat and the Board, upon which an inspection shall be conducted on the allegations raised.

¶37

5. For the present, we direct the police to comply

¶38

with our order and the petitioner to report to the Board on the measures being completely implemented. The Board shall then issue a notice to the Panchayat and in the presence of the Health Officer as deputed by the Panchayat, an inspection shall be carried out and a trial run conducted and a decision shall be taken on the Consent to Operate as requested by the petitioner.

¶39

The writ petition is disposed of on the above terms. Parties are directed to bear their respective costs.

¶40

Sd/K.VINOD CHANDRAN JUDGE

¶41

Sd/V.G.ARUN JUDGE

¶42

- 6 -

¶43

WP(C).No.14180 of 2019

¶44

APPENDIX

¶45

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶46

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE LICENCE ISSUED TO THE PETITIONERS INDUSTRIAL UNIT BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT PANCHAYATH FOR YEAR 2018-19 ON 28.09.2018

¶47

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF CASH RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 13.02.2019

¶48

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 28.02.2019 ISSUED BY THE PANCHAYATH TO THE 1ST PETITIONER

¶49

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE PANCHAYATH COMMITTEE OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT PANCHAYATH DATED 05.03.2019

¶50

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE PANCHAYATH COMMITTEE OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT PANCHAYATH DATED 07.03.2019

¶51

EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF STOP MEMO DATED 14.03.2019 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER UNIT BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT PANCHAYATH

¶52

EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE HEALTH INSPECTOR DATED NIL

¶53

EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF ONLINE REGISTRATION RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT OT THE 1ST PETITIONER ON 06.03.2019

¶54

EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 1.04.2019 ISSUED TO THE 1ST PETITIONER

¶55

EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF PROJECT REPORT DATED 16.04.2019 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS

¶56

EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 20.04.2019 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST PETITIONER

¶57

EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINANT PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONERS TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT ON 30.04.2019 WITH ACKNOWLEDGEMENT RECEIPT DATED 03.05.2019

¶58

RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶59

EXHIBIT R2(A) TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING DATED 7.3.2019.

¶60

Vku/-

¶61

[ true copy ]

Nazar v. the Sub Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nazar v. the Sub Inspector of Police

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

Neil Entertainment Vs Commissioner of Police

Dr.Francis Puthanangadi Vs the Circle Inspector of Police

Sudhar Vs the Circle Inspector of Police (Station House Officer)

State of Kerala Vs Aleyamma.v.M

A.K.Soosan Vs the Manager & Secretary

The Manager, St.Thomas Higher Secondary School, Vs State of Kerala