Disposed

G.Ponnappan, v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC7 Aug 2019WP(C)/488/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala disposed of writ petitions filed by proprietors of peeling units seeking police protection against alleged pollution and obstruction complaints. The Court held the complaints were baseless, rejected the need for 24-hour protection, and directed police to inspect premises before intervening in pollution disputes while avoiding interference in civil matters.

What did the court decide?

Rejection of request for round-the-clock police protection; direction to avoid police interference in civil disputes.

G.Ponnappan, Vs the State of Kerala — Pension and Retirement Benefits | 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

WEDNESDAY, THE 07TH DAY OF AUGUST 2019 / 16TH SRAVANA, 1941

¶7

WP(C).No.488 OF 2019(I)

¶8

PETITIONERS:

¶9

1 G.PONNAPPAN, AGED 61 YEARS, PROPRIETOR, M/S.AKHITHA MARINE, VAYALAR (PO), CHERTHALAI RESIDING AT KUNDATHIL KARI, VAYALAR (PO), CHERTHALAI.

¶10

2 SURESH KUMAR B., PROPRIETOR, THARAYIL SEA FOODS, VAYALAR P.O., CHERTHALI RESIDING AT THARAYIL, VAYALAR P.O., CHERTHALAI.

¶11

BY ADVS. SRI.P.V.JAYACHANDRAN SRI.NIDHI BALACHANDRAN SMT.G.N.DEEPA

¶12

RESPONDENTS:

¶13

1 THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY IT'S SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF HOME, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶14

2 THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF, ALAPPUZHA, COLLECTORATE, CIVIL STATION, ALAPPUZHA-688011.

¶15

3 THE ASSISTANT SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, CHARTHALAI, PIN -688501.

¶16

4 CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHERTHALAI - 688501.

¶17

5 SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHARTHALAI-688501.

¶18

6 ANEESH, POKKALIL, CHANDIROOR P.O., CHERTHALAI-688501.

¶19

THE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED OFFICER, DISTRICT OFFICE, AMC/X/501, ALAPPUZHA [ Impleaded as per order dated 07.08.19 in I.A. No. 1/2019]

¶20

R1 - 5 SR.GP SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07.08.2019 ALONG WITH W.P.(C) NO. 18208/2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

WP(C)Nos.488 & 18208 of 2019

¶23

¶24

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶25

PRESENT

¶26

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN

¶27

¶28

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN

¶29

WEDNESDAY, THE 07TH DAY OF AUGUST 2019 / 16TH SRAVANA, 1941 WP(C).No.18208 OF 2019(A)

¶30

PETITIONER:

¶31

SURESH KUMAR B, AGED 59 YEARS, PROPRIETOR, THARAYIL SEA FOODS, VAYALAR (P.O.), CHERTHALI, RESIDING AT THARAYIL, VAYALAR (P.O.), CHERTHALAI.

¶32

BY ADVS. SRI.P.V.JAYACHANDRAN

¶33

SRI.NIDHI BALACHANDRAN

¶34

SMT.G.N.DEEPA

¶35

RESPONDENTS:

¶36

1 THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF HOME, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.

¶37

2 THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF, ALAPPUZHA, COLLECTORATE, CIVIL STATION, ALAPPUZHA - 688 011.

¶38

3 THE ASSISTANT SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, CHERTHALAI - 688 524.

¶39

4 CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHERTHALAI - 688 524.

¶40

5 SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHERTHALAI - 688 524.

¶41

6 SAINU, S/O. VISWAMBARAN, KALATHIL VEEDU, VAYALAR, CHERTHALAI - 688 531.

¶42

7 JINESH, S/O. RAMESAN, KALATHIL VEEDU, VAYALAR, CHERTHALAI - 688 531.

¶43

WP(C)Nos.488 & 18208 of 2019

¶44

¶45

THE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED OFFICER, DISTRICT OFFICE, AMC/X/501, ALAPPUZHA [ Impleaded as per order dated 07.08.19 in I.A. No. 1/2019]

¶46

R1 - 5 BY SR.GP SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN R6 & 7 BY SRI. G. P. SHINOD, SRI. RAMMOHAND G., SRI. GOVIND PADMANABHAN SRI. AJITH G. ANJERLEKAR

¶47

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07.08.2019 ALONG WITH W.P.(C) NO. 488/2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶48

WP(C)Nos.488 & 18208 of 2019

¶49

¶50

JUDGMENT

¶51

K. Vinod Chandran, J.

¶52

One of the petitioners in W.P.(C) No. 488 of

¶53

2019 has filed W.P.(C) No. 18206 of 2018 for the

¶54

very same relief, however, impleaded different respondents. The issue is identical insofar as the obstruction alleged is against the conduct of peeling sheds by both the petitioners.

¶55

We directed the learned Standing Counsel for the Pollution Control Board to appear and get instructions in the matter. The learned Standing

¶56

Counsel submits, on instructions, that both the

¶57

petitioners are carrying on peeling units with consent to establish and operate as granted by the

¶58

Pollution Control Board and complying with the conditions therein. It is also submitted that an Effluent Treatment Plant has also been installed at

¶59

the premises of the petitioners. On receiving

¶60

complaints of pollution, they had enquired about the same and it was revealed that the complaints are

¶61

WP(C)Nos.488 & 18208 of 2019

¶62

¶63

baseless. There is no pollution as such caused.

¶64

The learned Senior Government Pleader has filed report of 5^th respondent/Station House Officer, Cherathala in W.P.(C) No. 18208/2019. It is stated that a complaint was filed by the

¶65

petitioner herein against the party respondents. However on enquiry it was found that the petitioner had laid pipes through their property which they had removed. It is also seen from the counter

¶66

affidavit filed by the party respondents that civil disputes are pending between the petitioner and party respondents in W.P.(C) No. 18208/2019. The

¶67

learned Senior Government Pleader also submits that

¶68

as of now there is no threat as such and no obstruction from the neighbours on the ground of pollution or any obstruction for reason of labour

¶69

disputes. However it is asserted that there are

¶70

civil disputes between one of the petitioners and the party respondents.

¶71

Considering the entire circumstances, we

¶72

¶73

¶74

are of the opinion that there is no requirement of round the clock protection. If any obstruction is

¶75

caused on grievance of pollution, the police shall first get the premises inspected by the Pollution Control Board and if there is no basis for such

¶76

complaint that obstruction shall be averted. As far as the civil dispute is concerned, we direct the police not to interfere with the same.

¶77

Writ Petitions stand disposed off with the

¶78

above observations. No costs.

Sd/-

K.VINOD CHANDRAN

JUDGE

Sd/-

V.G.ARUN

JUDGE

kmd

APPENDIX [ W.P.(c) No. 488 of 2019]

¶89

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶90

EXHIBIT P1	A TRUE COPY OF THE LICENSE FROM THE PANCHAYATH ISSUED TO THE 1ST PETITIONER'S UNIT
EXHIBIT P2	A TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION FROM THE MARINE PRODUCTS EXPORT DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ISSUED TO THE 1ST PETITIONER'S UNIT.
EXHIBIT P3	A TRUE COPY OF THE INTEGRATED CONSENT TO OPERATE FROM THE KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD ISSUED TO THE 1ST PETITIONER'S UNIT.
EXHIBIT P4	A TRUE COPY OF THE LICENSE FROM THE PANCHAYATH ISSUED TO THE 2ND PETITIONER IS UNIT.
EXHIBIT P5	A TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION FROM THE MARINE PRODUCTS EXPORT DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ISSUED TO THE 2ND PETITIONER'S UNIT.
EXHIBIT P6	A TRUE COPY OF THE INTEGRATED CONSENT TO OPERATE FROM THE KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD ISSUED TO THE 1ST PETITIONER'S UNIT.
EXHIBIT P7	A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 27/12/2018 SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P8	A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 28/12/2018 SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P9	A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 1/1/2019 SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER BEFORE THE 5TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P10	A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 1/1/2019 SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER BEFORE THE 5TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P11	A TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPTS ISSUED BY THE POLICE OFFICIALS AT THE TIME OF SUBMISSION OF THE COMPLAINTS.

¶91

¶92

¶93

APPENDIX [ W.P.(C) NO. 18208/2019]

¶94

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶95

EXHIBIT P1	A TRUE COPY OF THE LICENSE FROM THE PANCHAYATH ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER'S UNIT.
EXHIBIT P2	A TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION FROM THE MARINE PRODUCTS EXPORT DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER'S UNIT.
EXHIBIT P3	A TRUE COPY OF THE INTEGRATED CONSENT TO OPERATE FROM THE KERALA STAR POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER'S UNIT.
EXHIBIT P4	A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 27/12/18 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P5	A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 01/01/2019 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 5TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P6	A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 14/01/2019 IN WPC 488/2019 PASSED BY THIS HONOURABLE COURT.
EXHIBIT P7	A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 27/04/2019 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT ALONG WITH IT'S RECEIPT.
EXHIBIT P8	A TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 04/05/2019 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P9	A TRUE COPY OF HYGIENE AND SANITATION CERTIFICATE DATED 14/05/2019 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P10	A TRUE COPY OF THE ANALYSIS REPORT FOR THE

¶96

¶97

¶98

EFFLUENT SAMPLES COLLECTED FROM THE PETITIONER'S UNIT DATED 26/02/20109 ISSUED BY THE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD.

¶99

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:

¶100

EXHIBIT-R6(a) A TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S.NO.405 OF 2018 ON THE FILE OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, CHERTHALA. EXHIBIT-R6(b) A TRUE COPY OF THE IMPLEADING APPLICATION I.A.NO.1541 OF 2019 IN O.S.NO.405 OF 2018 ON THE FILES OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, CHERTHALA.

G.Ponnappan, v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G.Ponnappan, v. the State of Kerala

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

Suresh Babu K, Vs State Police Chief

Ninan Lukose, Vs the Director General of Police

The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs the State Police Chief

A.Raghavan Nambiar Vs State of Kerala

Ammini Vs the District Superintendent of Police

Riyas Khan Vs State of Kerala