This appeal against a writ order was dismissed after the appellant consented to the lower court's direction permitting a manual application for pollution categorisation, allowing the board to consider it.
Writ appeal dismissed; direction to Pollution Control Board to consider manual application with CPCB guidelines.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY
WEDNESDAY, THE 05TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2020 / 16TH MAGHA, 1941
WA.No.211 OF 2020
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 34876/2019(H) OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS:
1 SUDHEER HAMEED AGED 48 YEARS S/O HAMEED, SAFEER MANZIL, NEERKUNNAM, TDMC P.O., ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN-688 005.
2 HARITHAM RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION, REP BY SECRETARY, K.D.SADIK, S.N. KAVALA, VANDDANAM, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT-688 005.
BY ADVS. SRI.S.KRISHNAMOORTHY SHRI.JESUDASAN K X SMT.NITHYA SUGUNAN
RESPONDENTS:
1 DISTRICT COLLECTOR ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT-688 001.
2 THE AMBALAPPUZHA (NORTH) GRAMA PANCHAYAT, NEERKUNNAM, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT-688 005, REP BY ITS SECRETARY 3 KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, DISTRICT OFFICE, THONDANKULANGARA, THATHAMPALLY P.O., ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT-688 013, REP BY ITS SECRETARY
4 THE DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, ALAPPUZHA P.O., ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT-688 001.
5 SHUKOOR, KARUKATHARRA, VANDANAM P.O., ALAPPUZHA-688 005. R2 BY ADV. SRI.BRIJESH MOHAN R2 BY ADV. SRI.R.RAJPRADEEP
SR. GP SRI.TEK CHAND FOR R1 AND R4, SRI.T.NAVEEN, SC FOR R3, SRI.M.AJAY FOR R5,
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05.02.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WA.No.211 OF 2020
2
JUDGMENT
Petitioners jointly filed W.P.(C) No.34876/2019 dated 13.1.2020
with the following prayers:
I)To issue a writ of Mandamus or other appropriate writ order or direction directing the 2nd and 3d respondents not to grant any license in favour of 5th respondent to start meat collection centre as described in Exhibit P5(a) Sketch.
II) To issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ order or direction directing the 2nd and 3rd respondent to issue such direction after following the procedure if any to stop such activity of causing nuisance/pollution in conducting a meat collection centre mention in Exhibit P5(a) sketch by the 5th respondent.
III) To issue a Writ of mandamus or other appropriate Writ, order or direction directing the 1st respondent to take steps in Exhibit P1 representation.
IV)To issue such other reliefs as this Hon'ble Court may deem just and proper in the circumstances of the case.
following order:
“5. Without considering the merit and demerit of the matter, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 2nd and 3 respondents to consider the representation of the petitioners referred above, in accordance with law, after affording an opportunity to them, of being heard. Since the counsel for the 5th respondent has already undertaken not to carry out any activity as stated in the order cited above, at this stage, he has pointed out that Pollution Control Board has come out with on-line registration of the industry. He has submitted application
WA.No.211 OF 2020
3
dated 09.11.2019 categorising his unit as orange for fish processing and packing. However no such category is available on-line. But in fact his activity is fish processing and collection and therefore he had no option but to apply under on line. He further submits that he may be permitted to apply manually owing to the unavailability of other option. The afore-mentioned request of the petitioner appears to be fair and genuine. Accordingly, the directions of Pollution Control Board to consider the request submitted by the petitioner manually for prawn collection instead of fish processing. It is upto the Pollution Control Board to decide whether the case of the petitioner falls under prawn collection or fish processing.
Writ petition stands disposed of as above.”
WA.No.211 OF 2020
4
record. Mr.Naveen.T, learned standing counsel for the Pollution Control Board submitted that, the application submitted by respondent No.5 manually, would be considered in accordance with law. Mr.M.Ajay, learned counsel for respondent No.5 submitted that Central Pollution Control Board, New Delhi, has issued modified directions under section 18(1)(b) of the Water (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and the Air (Prevention & Contrl of Pollution) Act, 1981 and sent communications to all the Chair Persons/State Pollution Control Boards/Pollution Control Committees. He further submitted that, Pollution Control Board may be directed to take note of the above said modified directions issued.
WA.No.211 OF 2020
5
Placing on record the submissions, writ appeal is dismissed, granting liberty of the appellants to approach the appropriate forum, if
aggrieved and advised so.
Sd/-
S.MANIKUMAR
CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/-
SHAJI P.CHALY
JUDGE
smv
2 provisions across 2 enactments
SUDHEER HAMEED
HARITHAM RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION
DISTRICT COLLECTOR ALAPPUZHA
AMBALAPPUZHA (NORTH) GRAMA PANCHAYAT
KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
SHUKOOR
S. MANIKUMAR
SHAJI P. CHALY
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
