Dismissed

P.a.Vijayan v. Kerala State Pollution Control Board

Kerala HC9 Aug 2019WP(C)/14761/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court admitted a writ petition seeking a time-bound order for the Environmental Engineer to decide on a consent application and analyze cyanide levels in water samples. The petitioner subsequently offered to withdraw, which was accepted by the Court, noting the petitioner could still challenge the rejection of their consent application in appropriate proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed as withdrawn; petitioner reserves right to challenge the rejection of consent to operate in appropriate proceedings.

P.a.Vijayan Vs Kerala State Pollution Control Board — Environment and Pollution | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 09TH DAY OF AUGUST 2019 / 18TH SRAVANA, 1941

¶5

WP(C).No.14761 OF 2019(U)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

P.A.VIJAYAN, AGED 44 YEARS, S/O. APPU ACHARI, PROPRIETOR, VIJAYA INDUSTRIES, BUILDING NO.13/298, KUREEKKAD, KUREEKKAD P.O.

¶8

BY ADV.SRI.BABU JOSEPH KURUVATHAZHA

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, DISTRICT OFFICE, GANDHI NAGAR, ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTED BY ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER, KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, DISTRICT OFFICE, GANDHI NAGAR, ERNAKULAM-682 020. 2 ENVIRONMENT ENGINEER KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, DISTRICT OFFICE, GANDHI NAGAR, ERNAKULAM-682 020. * ADDL.R3 KUREEKKAD TOWN RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION REG.NO.ER/70/10, KUREEKKAD,THIRUVANKULAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-682305. REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. * IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 07.06.2019 IN I.A.NO.1 OF 2019.

¶11

WP(C).No.14761 OF 2019(U)

¶12

-2-

¶13

**** ADDL.R4 CHOTTANIKKARA GRAMA PANCHAYATH CHOTTANIKKARA P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-682 312 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. ** IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 23.07.2019 IN I.A.NO.6 OF 2019**

¶14

BY ADVS. SRI.KAPPILLIL ANILKUMAR SRI.S.SREEKUMAR (SR.) SRI.P.MARTIN JOSE SRI.P.PRIJITH SRI.THOMAS P.KURUVILLA

¶15

SRI. T.NAVEEN, SC FOR POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09.08.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

WP(C).No.14761 OF 2019(U)

¶18

-3-

¶19

JUDGMENT

¶20

The petitioner, who is the proprietor of Vijaya Industries in building No.13/298 of Chottanikkara Grama Panchayat, at Kureekkad, has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of mandamus commanding respondents 1 and 2 to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P3 application for consent to operate the gold ornaments making unit, within a time limit to be fixed by this Court, considering Ext.P6 objection submitted by the petitioner to Ext.P5 notice dated 12.04.2019 issued by the 2^nd respondent and also by analysing the chemical composition of Cyanide, if any, found in traceable quantity of water sample collected from the adjacent properties and ascertaining whether it is natural Cyanide or artificial Cyanide.

¶21

On 29.05.2019, when this writ petition came up

¶22

for consideration, the learned counsel for the petitioner sought time to file an application to implead 'Kureekkad Town Residents Association', the 3^rd respondent in Appeal

¶23

WP(C).No.14761 OF 2019(U)

¶24

-4-

¶25

No.319 of 2019 on the file of the Tribunal for Local Self

¶26

Government Institutions, as additional respondent.

¶27

On 07.06.2019, when this writ petition came up

¶28

for consideration, this Court allowed I.A No.1 of 2019, thereby impleading Kureekkad Town Residents Association, represented by its Secretary, as additional 3^rd respondent. The learned Standing Counsel for Pollution Control Board took notice on admission for respondents 1 and 2 and the additional 3^rd respondent entered appearance through counsel. The writ petition was ordered to be listed to 24.06.2019 for further consideration, with a direction to respondents 1 and 2 to file statement and the additional 3^rd respondent to file counter affidavit.

¶29

On 24.06.2019, when this writ petition came up for consideration, the additional 3^rd respondent filed I.A. No.2 of 2019 seeking an order to accept Exts.R3(s) to R3(u) as additional documents. The additional 3^rd respondent has also filed I.A.No.3 of 2019 seeking an order directing the 2^nd respondent Environmental Engineer to stop the functioning of

¶30

WP(C).No.14761 OF 2019(U)

¶31

-5-

¶32

the industrial unit of the petitioner. Such a relief has been sought for on the strength of Ext.R3(t) order dated 14.06.2019 of the 2^nd respondent Environmental Engineer, whereby Ext.P3 application made by the petitioner for consent to operate stands rejected.

¶33

By order dated 24.06.2019, it was made clear that the pendency of this writ petition will not enable the petitioner to run the gold ornament making unit in building No.13/298 of Chottanikkara Grama Panchayat, without any consent to operate issued by the Kerala State Pollution Control Board. The 2^nd respondent Environmental Engineer was directed to take necessary steps to ensure that the gold ornaments making unit of the petitioner is not functioning, in the absence of a valid consent to operate. The petitioner was directed to file an application to implead Chottanikkara Grama Panchayat, represented by its Secretary, as an additional respondent, within one week.

¶34

By order dated 23.07.2019, I.A.No.6 of 2019 filed by the petitioner seeking an order to implead Chottanikkara

¶35

WP(C).No.14761 OF 2019(U)

¶36

-6-

¶37

Grama Panchayat as additional 4^th respondent was allowed subject to the observations contained in that order.

¶38

Paragraphs 3 to 7 of the said order reads thus;

¶39

“3. Going by the averments in the writ petition, the unit is functioning in the address mentioned in this writ petition from the year 2005 onwards. The petitioner applied for Trade Licence for the period 2019-20, which was granted and a copy of the licence is placed on record as Ext.P2, which is one issued on 08.03.2019 and valid upto 31.03.2020. The petitioner made an application for consent to operate, by submitting Ext.P3 application, after remitting the requisite fee of Rs.19,950/- vide Ext.P4 receipt.

¶40

In paragraph 3 of the writ petition, it is averred that the local residents in the locality, i.e., Kureekkad Town Residents Association No.ER/70/10 lodged a complaint before the Grama Panchayat and also before the Kerala State Pollution Control Board, alleging that water sources, wells and ponds in the adjacent properties are getting contaminated due to the leakage of spent water from the petitioner's unit to the soil and requested the authorities to close down the unit.

¶41

The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to consider and dispose of Ext.P3 application for consent to

¶42

WP(C).No.14761 OF 2019(U)

¶43

-7-

¶44

operate, within a time limit fixed by this Court, considering Ext.P6 objection filed by the petitioner to Ext.P5 notice and also by analysing the chemical composition of cyanide, if any, found in the traceable quantity of water sample collected from the adjacent properties and ascertaining whether it is natural cyanide or artificial cyanide.

¶45

Though the writ petition contains an averment to the effect that there are complaints before the Grama Panchayat against the functioning of the petitioner's unit at the instance of Kureekkad Town Residents Association, for reasons best known to the petitioner, he has chosen to file this writ petition without the Grama Panchayat and also the Residents Association in the party array. After the order of this Court dated 29.05.2019, the petitioner has chosen to file this interlocutory application.

¶46

Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel on both sides, this Court finds that the conduct of the petitioner in filing this writ petition, without the Grama Panchayat and also the Residents Association in the party array has to be deprecated in the strongest terms and I do so.”

¶47

On 23.07.2019, during the course of arguments,

¶48

the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has already closed down the industrial unit in

¶49

WP(C).No.14761 OF 2019(U)

¶50

-8-

¶51

question, and he proposes to challenge Ext.R3(t) order dated 14.06.2019, whereby consent to operate has already been declined by the Pollution Control Board.

¶52

The learned counsel for the additional 4^th

¶53

respondent Grama Panchayat was directed to get instructions, as to whether the petitioner's industrial unit, which was functioning in the very same address from the year 2005, was having D&O Licence (Trade Licence) prior to Ext.P2 licence for the year 2019-20.

¶54

The additional 3^rd respondent has filed a counter affidavit, opposing the reliefs sought for in this writ petition. The petitioner has filed a reply affidavit. A statement has been filed by the additional 4^th respondent Grama Panchayat.

¶55

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the

¶56

learned Standing Counsel for Pollution Control Board, the learned counsel for the additional 3^rd respondent and also the learned counsel for the additional 4^th respondent Grama Panchayat.

¶57

The learned Standing Counsel for Pollution Control

¶58

WP(C).No.14761 OF 2019(U)

¶59

-9-

¶60

Board, on instructions from the 2^nd respondent Environmental Engineer, would submit that the petitioner has already closed down the gold ornaments manufacturing unit by name Vijaya Industries in building No.13/298 of Chottanikkara Grama Panchayat, at Kureekkad.

¶61

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner may be permitted to withdraw this writ petition, without prejudice to his right to challenge Ext.R3(t) order dated 14.06.2019 of the 2^nd respondent Environmental Engineer rejecting the application for consent to operate, in appropriate proceedings.

¶62

Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel on both sides and the request of the learned counsel for the petitioner to withdraw this writ petition, without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to challenge Ext.R3(t) order dated 14.06.2019 in appropriate proceedings, this writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn (after deprecating in strongest terms, the conduct of the petitioner in approaching this Court without necessary parties in the party

¶63

WP(C).No.14761 OF 2019(U)

¶64

-10-

¶65

array) reserving the aforesaid right of the petitioner. The petitioner shall not be entitled to run the unit in question, without obtaining consent from the Pollution Control Board and complying with other statutory requirements, applicable to such a unit.

¶66

Sd/- ANIL K. NARENDRAN JUDGE

¶67

bpr

P.a.Vijayan v. Kerala State Pollution Control Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.a.Vijayan v. 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Roy Mathew Vs Vellathooval Grama Panchayat

A.Chenthamara Vs the Manager, Canara Bank

Naushad Vs the Joint Regional Transport Officer

M.G. Rathnan, Vs District Telecom Committee

K.S.Raghavan Vs the Divisional Manager

Vaiju P.S., Vs Kerala State Road Transport Corporation