Disposed

The Secretary, Municipal Corporation of Kollam v. R.Premkumar

Kerala HC4 Jun 2020WA/1766/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal against an interim order closing a Corporation-run slaughter house due to pollution of Ashtamudi Lake. The bench declined to interfere with the lower court order, directing parties to approach the writ court for disposal of the main petition.

What did the court decide?

The writ appeal was disposed of; parties directed to approach the writ court for disposal of the sub-judice matter.

The Secretary, Municipal Corporation of Kollam Vs… — Environment and Pollution | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

¶6

THURSDAY, THE 04TH DAY OF JUNE 2020 / 14TH JYAISHTA, 1942

¶7

W.A.No.1766 OF 2017

¶8

AGAINST THE ORDER IN WPC 1085/2009 DATED 03-07-2017 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA

¶9

APPELLANT/RESPONDENT NO.1 & 7:

¶10

1 THE SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF KOLLAM

¶11

2 THE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF KOLLAM REP BY ITS SECRETARY, KOLLAM - 691 001.

¶12

BY ADV. SRI.M.K.CHANDRA MOHANDAS

¶13

RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS 2 TO 6, 8 & 9:

¶14

1 R.PREMKUMAR, KAMPISSERIL, LDNRA NO.68, VADAKKUMBHAGOM, KOLLAM - 691 001.

¶15

2 FRANCIS THOMAS, KANDATHIL BLUE HOUSE, LDNRA NO.8,VADAKKUMBHAGOM, KOLLAM - 691 001.

¶16

3 S. SIVAKUMAR, SIVASAILAM, LDNRA NO.14, VADAKKUMBHAGOM, KOLLAM - 691 001.

¶17

4 THE MAYOR, MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF KOLLAM, KOLLAM - 691 001.

¶18

5 THE SECRETARY, KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.

¶19

6 THE ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, KOLLAM.

¶20

7 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOLLAM - 691 001.

¶21

W.A.No.1766 OF 2017

¶22

: 2 :

¶23

8 THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT, GOVT. OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.

¶24

9 THE CENTRAL WETLANDS REGULATORY AUTHORITY (CONSTITUTED UNDER RULE 5 OF THE WET LANDS (CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT RULES, 2010), REPRESENTED BY ITS MEMBER SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT AND FOREST, GOVT OF INDIA, NEW DELHI - 560 001.

¶25

10 THE UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVT OF INDIA, THE MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT, FORESTS AND CLIMATE CHANGE, NEW DELHI - 560 001.

¶26

R10, R9 BY ASSISTANT SOLICITOR GENERAL SRI.P.VIJAYAKUMAR SR. G.P. SURIN GEORGE IPE FOR R7 AND R8 SRI.SHYAMKRISHNAN

¶27

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04.06.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

W.A.No.1766 OF 2017

: 3 :

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 4^th day of June 2020

¶32

S.MANIKUMAR, C.J.

¶33

Appellant is the first respondent in the writ petition. Writ appeal is filed against the interim order dated 3.7.2017 in W.P.(C)No.1085 of 2009 by which the learned Single Judge directed the Corporation to close down the slaughter house run by the Corporation unless the Corporation is able to comply with the recommendations of the Pollution Control Board as contained in Annexure A1 direction issued by the Pollution Control Board.

¶34

Issue involved in the writ petition is relating to the location of slaughter house on the banks of Ashtamudi lake. The writ petitioners are nearby residents of the above lake. They are residing near to the slaughter house and alleging pollution to Ashtamudi lake, they have approached the court seeking directions to shift the slaughter house to an alternative site. Relevant portion of the impugned interim order dated 3.7.2017 reads as under:

¶35

“4. This Court on 12.6.17, passed an order by directing the Corporation to show cause why the slaughter house shall not be closed in the light of the report as above. Thereafter another order was passed on 19.6.2017 to place the steps taken by the Corporation to comply with the recommendations of Central team as well as the Pollution Control Board. The Corporation

¶36

W.A.No.1766 OF 2017

¶37

: 4 :

¶38

thereafter filed a statement stating that they were given time up to 31.7.2018 to comply with the directions of the Central team. It is also stated that they have taken certain measures to reduce pollution and to ensure that slaughter house is being operated in most hygienic condition.

¶39

As matter of fact, it is to be noted that Corporation has to obtain sanction from the Pollution Control Board. In the light of report placed before this Court, no longer they can be permitted to continue with the operation of slaughter house. The authority to enforce law within local jurisdiction themselves is now found violators of law. It is the duty of the Corporation to have a proper waste disposal and to ensure that contagious diseases and vector borne diseases are not spread on account or handling of waste. The State is reeling under the grip of fever. Nothing would happen if the slaughter house is closed for a while to comply with the legal parameters. Public Interest is most important than the interest of the few who may depend upon the livelihood. No doubt Corporation cannot operate the slaughter house without the the permission or consent issued by the Pollution Control Board. In view of the above, directions should be followed for closing down the slaughter house. This shall be done within one week. The district police shall ensure implementation of this order. Learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation submits that if the slaughter house is closed down illegal slaughter houses will mushroom in the areas to cater the needs of the local people. Certainly the District Police shall ensure to take action against illegal slaughter houses or abattoir

¶40

W.A.No.1766 OF 2017

¶41

: 5 :

¶42

without fail. However nothing would stand in the way of Pollution Control Board to allow the operation of slaughter houses on such terms and conditions they deem fit to impose."

¶43

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record.

¶44

Though the impugned interim order is challenged on various grounds, at this length of time, after expiry of three years, we are not inclined to interfere with the same. Since the writ court is in seisin of the matter, it is appropriate for

¶45

the parties to approach the writ court and seek appropriate orders for the disposal of the writ petition. The writ appeal stands disposed of accordingly.

¶46

Pending interlocutory applications, if any, shall stand closed.

¶47

sd/- S.MANIKUMAR CHIEF JUSTICE

¶48

sd/- SHAJI P. CHALY JUDGE

¶49

jes

The Secretary, Municipal Corporation of Kollam v. R.Premkumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Secretary, Municipal Corporation of Kollam v. R.Premkumar

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

S.Unnikrishnan Vs State of Kerala

K.v.Gopi, Vs District Collector

Alex Varghese Vs Recovery Officer Debt Recovery Tribunal

Central Board of Secondary Education (Cbse) Vs Nayana Sidhardh

Kerala State Beverages (Manufacturing & Marketing)Corporation Limited Vs the Secretary

Kerala State Beverages (Manufacturing & Marketing) Corporation Limited Vs State of Kerala