Disposed

C.T.Harilal v. the Sreekrishnapuram Gramapanchayat

Kerala HC2 Dec 2019WP(C)/14401/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala, addressing a petition by residents against a rubber producer, directed the Panchayat Secretary to hear parties after obtaining a Pollution Control Board report. The court held that technical pollution disputes fall within the jurisdiction of competent authorities rather than the court.

What did the court decide?

Directed the 2nd respondent to hear parties and issue orders after obtaining a report from the Pollution Control Board within ten days.

C.T.Harilal Vs the Sreekrishnapuram Gramapanchayat — Environment and Pollution | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶4

MONDAY, THE 02ND DAY OF DECEMBER 2019 / 11TH AGRAHAYANA, 1941 WP(C).No.14401 OF 2019(A)

¶5

PETITIONERS:

¶6

1 C.T.HARILAL, AGED 59 YEARS, S/O.SANKUNNI GUPTHAN, LAL NIVAS, KULAKKATTUKURUSSI, (P.O.) NEELAMANGALAM, SREEKRISHNAPURAM, OTTAPALAM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN-678633.

¶7

2 E.P.GOPALAKRISHNAN, AGED 60 YEARS, S/O.E.P.S.PANIKKAR, E.P.HOUSE, KULAKKATTUKURUSSI, (P.O.) NEELAMANGALAM, SREEKRISHNAPURAM, OTTAPALAM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN-678 633.

¶8

3 K.SUBRAMANIYAN, AGED 58 YEARS, S/O.CHINNAGUPTHAN, KOTTAYIL HOUSE, KULAKKATTUKURUSSI, (P.O.) NEELAMANGALAM, SREEKRISHNAPURAM, OTTAPALAM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN-678 633.

¶9

4 MADHAVANKUTTY, AGED 65 YEARS, S/O.KUTTA PANICKER, M.K.NIVAS, KULAKKATTUKURUSSI, (P.O.) NEELAMANGALAM, SREEKRISHNAPURAM, OTTAPALAM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN-678 633.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.K.RAVI (PARIYARATH)

¶11

RESPONDENTS:

¶12

1 THE SREEKRISHNAPURAM GRAMAPANCHAYAT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, SREEKRISHNAPURAM, OTTAPALAM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN-678 633.

¶13

2 THE SECRETARY, SREEKRISHNAPURAM GRAMAPANCHAYAT, SREEKRISHNAPURAM, OTTAPALAM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN-678 633.

¶14

3 THE KULAKKATTUKURRUSSI FARMER PRODUCERS COMPANY, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT HARIDAS, S/O.SANKARA GUPTHAN, KULAKKATTUKURUSSI, (P.O.) SREEKRISHNAPURAM, OTTAPALAM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN-678 633.

¶15

WP(C).No.14401 OF 2019 2

¶16

4 THE KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, KENATHUPARAMBU, KUNATHURMEDU, PALAKKAD FORT, PALAKKAD, PIN-678 001.

¶17

R1-2 BY ADV. SRI.PHILIP T.VARGHESE R1-2 BY ADV. SRI.THOMAS T.VARGHESE R1-2 BY ADV. SMT.V.T.LITHA R1-2 BY ADV. SMT.K.R.MONISHA R3 BY ADV. SRI.P.JAYARAM SRI T. NAVEEN, SC, POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02.12.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

WP(C).No.14401 OF 2019 3

¶20

JUDGMENT

¶21

The petitioners had originally approached this Court asserting that the 3^rd respondent, which is stated to be a Company of rubber producers in the locality, is operating a Rubber Sheet Manufacturing Unit without obtaining any of the necessary licences and consents from the competent Authorities and thus praying that the 2^nd respondent - Secretary of the Sreekrishnapuram Grama Panchayat be directed not to grant any Trade Licence for the said activity.

¶22

However, when this matter was heard today, it is conceded before me by the learned counsel for the petitioners - Sri.Ravi K. (Pariyarath), that a day before this writ petition was filed, the 2^nd respondent Secretary had issued Ext.R3(a) Trade Licence in favour of the 3^rd respondent; but submits that, in spite of the same, the challenge in this writ petition is still relevant, since the said licence clearly stipulates as condition No.18 therein that the activity of the Unit can be done only without causing pollution or prejudice to the residents of the area. He then asserts that going by Ext.P3 the Heath Inspector of the Grama Panchayat has clearly found that the activity carried on by the 3^rd respondent is causing horrific pollution and noxious smell in the entire locality. The learned counsel,

¶23

WP(C).No.14401 OF 2019 4

¶24

therefore, prays that the 2^nd respondent - Secretary be directed to advert to Ext.P3 and take appropriate action forthwith.

¶25

The learned counsel appearing for the 3^rd respondent submits that the allegations made against his clients are totally wrong and that they have been made solely on the basis of certain political disputes between the parties. He says that his client is operating the Unit on the strength of all necessary licences and permissions, including the consent from the Pollution Control Board and therefore, that this writ petition is not maintainable particularly when the said Board does not have a case that his client has violated any of the essential criterion or conditions under the Consent. He, therefore, prays that this writ petition be dismissed.

¶26

The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Panchayat also submits that this writ petition is not maintainable since the petitioners will have to approach the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions if they wants to challenge Ext.R3(a) Trade Licence issued by the 2^nd respondent Secretary. He says that Ext.R3(a) was issued based on a hearing conducted with all the parties, which is evident from the said document; and therefore, that the petitioners cannot obtain any locus to challenge the same in this writ petition. He, therefore, prays that this writ petition be dismissed.

¶27

WP(C).No.14401 OF 2019 5

¶28

When I consider the afore submissions, it is without doubt that the petitioners' limited plea in this writ petition was that the 3^rd respondent be allowed not to operate their Unit without obtaining necessary sanctions and consents from the competent Authorities. Now that it is admitted, even by the petitioners that the 3^rd respondent has obtained all such consents, it is certainly up to them to challenge the same as per law or to take such necessary action in terms of law.

¶29

That said, it is also available that the Health Inspector appears to have made Ext.P3 report before the Secretary of the Panchayat indicating that the functioning of the Unit by the 3^rd respondent is causing some pollution in the area in question. Whether this is right or wrong is a matter which will have to be considered by the Secretary, in consultation with the Pollution Control Board, but it will not be proper for this Court to delve into it, since the competent Authorities vested with appropriate jurisdiction under the relevant statutes are enjoined to look into these even without orders from this Court.

¶30

In the afore circumstances and for the reasons above, I direct the 2^nd respondent to immediately hear the petitioners, as well as the 3^rd respondent, after obtaining the necessary report from the competent Authority of the Pollution Control Board; and then issue appropriate orders as to whether the operation of the Unit by the 3^rd respondent

¶31

WP(C).No.14401 OF 2019 6

¶32

causes any pollution, in violation of the conditions in the Consent to Operate issued by the said Board.

¶33

For the afore purpose, I direct the Environmental Engineer of the Pollution Control Board to forthwith inspect the Unit, if it has not been done already and submit a report before the 2^nd respondent - Secretary of the Grama Panchayat not later than ten days from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, so as to enable the said Authority to thereafter act in terms of this judgment and issue appropriate orders, which shall be communicated to all the parties within a period of two weeks from the date on which he receives the report from the Pollution Control Board.

¶34

This writ petition is thus ordered.

¶35

Sd/-

¶36

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶37

JUDGE

¶38

sru

¶39

WP(C).No.14401 OF 2019 7

¶40

APPENDIX

¶41

PETITIONERS EXHIBITS:

¶42

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE HEALTH INSPECTOR, SREEKRISHNAPURAM, FAMILY HEALTH CENTER, DATED 31.1.19, IS PRODUCED HERE WITH THE MARKED AS EXHIBIT P1. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT PREFERRED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT AT THE INSTANCE OF THE PETITIONERS ALONG WITH THE OTHER RESIDENTS OF THE LOCALITY DATED 10.4.19. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY THE HEALTH INSPECTOR, FWC, SREEKRISHNAPURAM, TO THE LOCAL INHABITANTS OF KULAKKATUKURUSSI, DATED 24.08.19.

¶43

RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS:

¶44

EXHIBIT R3(A) TRUE COPY OF THE LICENSE NO.277/19 DATED 20/5/2019 ISSUED TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT BY THE SECRETARY, SREEKRISHNAPURAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT. EXHIBIT R3(b) TRUE COPY OF THE SANITARY CERTIFICATE DATED 6/5/2019 ISSUED TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT BY THE FAMILY HEALTH CENTRE, SREEKRISHNAPURAM. EXHIBIT R3(C) TRUE COPY OF THE CONSENT TO OPERATE WITH NO PCB/PLKD/ICO/F/938/2019 DATED 20/4/2019 ISSUED TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT BY THE KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD. EXHIBIT R3(d) TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION ISSUED TO THE KULAKKATTUKURISSI RUBBER PRODUCER COMPANY LTD., FROM MINISTRY OF CORPORATE AFFAIRS, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA.

C.T.Harilal v. the Sreekrishnapuram Gramapanchayat

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C.T.Harilal v. the Sreekrishnapuram Gramapanchayat

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

M.K.Gopi Vs the State of Kerala

Sunny P.K. Vs State of Kerala

Ambrose.K.T Vs Environmental Engineer

Ponnakkambat Premalatha Vs State of Kerala

Benny Mathew Vs Village Officer, Mulanthuruthy Village

Dr.M.K.Muhammed Iqbal Vs Palakkad Municipality