Dismissed

Ranjan.a.S v. Mary Sadan Apg Infra Pvt. Ltd.

Kerala HC12 Jun 2020WA/360/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Additional respondents in W.A.360/2020 appealed against W.P(C) 3923/2020 which permitted a tar mixing plant to operate subject to complying with pollution control conditions. The division bench found no strong grounds to interfere and dismissed the appeal.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed; learned Single Judge's judgment upheld; pollution control board directed to ensure compliance of consent conditions noted in the report dated 13.2.2020.

Ranjan.a.S Vs Mary Sadan Apg Infra Pvt. Ltd. — 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

FRIDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF JUNE 2020 / 22ND JYAISHTA, 1942

¶7

WA.No.360 OF 2020

¶8

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 3923/2020(M) OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 17.2.2020

¶9

APPELLANTS/ADDL.RESPONDENTS 4-6:

¶10

1 RANJAN.A.S AGED 56 YEARS, S/O. SADANANDAN, ANJAMKALATHARA, MKK NAGAR, MUPPATHADAM P O, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-683110.

¶11

2 ANIL S F AGED 40 YEARS, SRAMBIKAL HOUSE, MKK NAGAR, MUPPATHADAM P O, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-683110.

¶12

3 MOHANAN AGED 59 YEARS KALATHARA HOUSE, MUPPATHADAM P O, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-683110.

¶13

BY ADV. SRI.P.SHAIJAN JOSEPH

¶14

RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER/RESPONDENTS:

¶15

1 MARY SADAN APG INFRA PVT. LTD, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO.17/301/A, EDATHALA BUILDING, NEELESWARAM P O, KALADY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT AND THE UNIT IS FUNCTIONING AT V/823, DEVELOPMENT AREA, EDAYAR, MUPPATHADAM P O, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-683110, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR SUBIN GEORGE, S/O. GEORGE, AGED 33 YEARS,

¶16

W.A.360/2020

¶17

¶18

2 KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, REPRESENTED BY THE MEMBER SECRETARY, KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695001.

¶19

3 THE ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER, KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, ENVIRONMENTAL SURVEILLANCE CENTER, UDYOGAMANDAL P O, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-683501.

¶20

4 THE CHIEF ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER, KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, REGIONAL OFFICE, ERNAKULAM, PIN-682020.

¶21

R1 BY ADV. SRI.BABU.S.NAIR R2-4 BY ADV. SRI.T.NAVEEN

¶22

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02-032020, THE COURT ON 12-06-2020 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

W.A.360/2020

J U D G M E N T

Dated the 12^th day of June, 2020

¶27

S. Manikumar, CJ

¶28

Being aggrieved by the judgment made in W.P(C). No. 3923 of 2020 dated 17.2.2020, instant appeal is filed by respondents 4 to 6.

¶29

Short facts leading to writ appeal are as under:

¶30

Writ petitioner ie., the 1^st respondent in the appeal is a private limited company, registered under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. A plot has been allotted to the petitioner for setting up a Tar mixing plant in the Edayar Industrial area and the petitioner has obtained all the requisite permit for setting up the establishment in the industrial area. Initially the petitioner had obtained consent to establish from the respondents and after complying with all the directions the petitioner had set up a hot mix plant and after setting up the industrial unit, the petitioner had applied for consent to operate to the respondents and the petitioner had obtained Ext. P1 consent to operate. When the petitioner had set up the industrial unit, some of the local people attempted to obstruct the functioning of the unit and accordingly, the petitioner approached this Court and by Ext.P2 interim order this Court granted interim order of police protection to the petitioner. Though the respondents appeared and

¶31

W.A.360/2020

¶32

¶33

filed counter affidavits, still the interim order is continuing and the respondents are completely aware that there is nothing to stop the legal activity undertaken by the petitioner. Therefore, due to some political influence, it appears that the same persons have approached the Environmental Engineer, Kerala State Pollution Control Board, Ernakulam (2^nd respondent) and immediately the 2^nd respondent, even without conducting an inspection and even without issuing notice to the petitioner and serving even a copy of the complaint alleged to have been given by some of the residents, vide Ext.P3, ordered that the petitioner shall stop the operation of the unit, even without specifying as to what conditions the petitioner has failed to comply. Ext.P3 order reads thus:

¶34

“PCB/ICO/019ERR500877/19 Date:10.2.2020

¶35

From

¶36

The Environmental Engineer.

¶37

To M/s. MARYSADAN APG INFRA PVT. LTD. V/823 Development Area Edayar Muppathadom P.O., Ernakulam-63110

¶38

Sir,

¶39

Board had received complaint from the nearby residents of your hot mix plant M/s. Marysadan against the air pollution problems caused due to operation of your unit. It is noted that you have not complied with all conditions stipulated in the consent. Hence, you are hereby directed to stop the operation of the unit and shall

¶40

W.A.360/2020

¶41

¶42

be restarted only after ensuring the compliance of the conditions in the consent. You are also directed to report the action taken in this regard to this office urgently.

¶43

Yours faithfully,

¶44

Sd/-

¶45

P.B. Sree Lakshmy Environmental Engineer”

¶46

Hence the petitioner has filed the writ petition seeking for

¶47

the following reliefs:

¶48

“i) Call for the entire records leading to Exhibit P3 and quash the same by the issuance of a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writs, orders or directions.

¶49

ii) Declare that the issuance of Exhibit P3 against the petitioner, without specifying the reasons and without hearing the petitioner is perse illegal and arbitrary.”

¶50

After adverting to pleadings and rival submissions, writ court at paragraphs 4, 5 and 6, held thus:

¶51

Per contra, the learned Standing Counsel for the Kerala State Pollution Control Board appearing for respondents 1 to 3 would submit that the statutory consent was granted for running of the petitioner's unit as per Ext.P1 proceedings dated 2.11.2019 issued by the 2nd respondent Environmental Engineer, Kerala State Pollution Control Board and that later it was found that the petitioner has breached certain conditions stipulated in paragraph No.5 of Ext.P1 consent proceedings, more particularly , condition Nos.5.6, 5.8, 5.9 and 5.10 etc.,

¶52

W.A.360/2020

¶53

¶54

thereof and therefore, the respondents were constrained to issue the impugned Ext.P3 stop memo dated 10.02.2020 directing the petitioner to stop the operation of the unit and so that the same may be restarted only after ensuring the compliance of the conditions in the consent etc. It is now pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that, subsequently, the 2nd respondent (The Environmental Engineer, Kerala State Pollution Control Board) has also issued letter No.PCB/ESC/CTE-31/2019 dated 13.02.2020 directing the petitioner to rectify certain defects and the said letter was issued by the 2nd respondent in response to the petitioner's letter dated 10.2.2020. The said letter dated 13.02.2020 issued by the 2nd respondent reads as follows:-

¶55

“Board had received complaint against your hot mix plant. Based on the complaint, Board had conducted an ambient air monitoring in your unit on 05.02.2020. The result of ambient air monitoring show the value of particulate matter (PM10) is 101 ug/nm3 exceeding the standards which is the violation of consent condition no.5.14. It may also be noted that smell experienced during ambient air monitoring conducted on 05.02.2020 which may be due to fugitive emissions while operation of the unit. During enquiry, it was also noted that your have not complied conditions stipulated in the consent. Hence, letter referred 3rd above was issued to you directing you to stop the activity in the unit. As per your letter referred 4th above, Board had again conducted inspection in your unit on 11.02.2020. During enquiry it is noted that you have not complied the following consent conditions.

¶56

W.A.360/2020

¶57

¶58

Sl. No	Condition No.	Details	Compliance status
1	5.6 & 5.15	Sprinklers shall be provided at solid aggregate storage area, material unloading area and handling area	Not complied
2	5.8	Internal roads inside the company premises shall be either tarred or concreted within 15 days.	Partly complied
3	5.9	The raw materials shall be stored in an enclosed building.	Not complied
4	5.1	Compound wall of adequate height shall be provided in the unit.	Partially complied
5	5.12	Sprinklers shall be provided at all dust emission points	Partially complied (sprinklers seen provided only at boundary)

¶59

Hence, your are hereby directed to comply the above consent conditions and submit the action taken report urgently for initiating further actions.”

¶60

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner will immediately ensure that the defects mentioned in the above said letter dated 13.02.2020, if any, are rectified by the petitioner and the rectification report/compliance report in that regard will be immediately given to the 2nd respondent etc. It is for the petitioner to ensure that all such defects are duly rectified, so that no room for complaint from the respondents that the petitioner has breached any of the conditions in paragraph No.5 of Ext.P1, more particularly, condition Nos.5.6 and 5.9 thereof. Condition Nos.5.6, 5.8, 5.9 and 5.10 of Ext.P1 read as follows:

¶61

“5. Specific conditions

¶62

xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx

¶63

5.6. sprinklers shall be provided at solid aggregates storage area and the same shall be operated whenever the aggregates unloaded in the storage area.

W.A.360/2020

xxx xxx xxx

5.8. Internal roads inside the company premises shall be either tarred or concreted within 15 days. 5.9. The raw materials shall be stored in an enclosed building.

¶68

5.10. Compound wall of adequate height shall be provided in the unit.”

¶69

In that regard, this Court would prima facie observe that condition Nos.5.8 and 5.10 may not be the immediate basis for the stoppage of the petitioner's unit and sufficient time in that regard may be given by the respondents Kerala State Pollution Control Board to the petitioner, as any industrial unit might require significant time for taking steps for ensuring that the internal roads inside the company premises are tarred or concreted or for increasing the height of the compound wall etc. Reasonable time in that regard should certainly be given by the respondents Kerala State Pollution Control Board as regards condition Nos.5.8 and 5.10 are concerned.

¶70

In that regard, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that, as per condition No.5.10 of Ext.P1, the height of the compound wall will be increased within 3-4 weeks. The learned counsel for the petitioner would also submit on the basis of the instructions that the petitioner will ensure that condition No.5.8 in the matter of tarring or concreting of the internal roads inside the company premises is also duly completed within a month, at any rate, within the outer time limit of 31.3.2020. The above said undertakings made by the petitioner as regards condition Nos.5.8 and 5.10 are hereby recorded. Thereafter, the petitioner may immediately ensure that all

¶71

W.A.360/2020

¶72

¶73

the other defects are rectified without any further delay and the rectification report/compliance report is given to the 2nd respondent who may, thereafter, ensure that a detailed inspection is conducted in the petitioner's unit within three days from the receipt of the said rectification report/compliance report with due prior notice to the petitioner and to ascertain whether the petitioner has rectified all the defects. In case the petitioner has substantially rectified all such defects, then it is for the 2nd respondent to take an appropriate decision in the matter of revocation of the impugned Ext.P3 stop memo. As observed herein above, condition Nos.5.8 and 5.10 shall not be the grounds for continuation of the impugned Ext.P3 stop memo and liberty is accorded to the respondents Kerala State Pollution control Board to ensure that rectification of the defects pursuant to condition Nos.5.8 and 5.10 of Ext.P1 is complied with, by the petitioner within the above said time limit now undertaken by the petitioner as mentioned hereinabove.

¶74

With these observations and directions, the above Writ Petition (Civil) will stand disposed of.”

¶75

Being aggrieved, instant writ appeal is filed, inter alia contending that the 1^st respondent/writ petitioner has violated many specific conditions of Consent to Operate. The 1^st respondent admitted that he had not complied condition Nos.5.6, 5.8, 5.9, 5.10, 5.12 and 5.15 of the Consent to Operate. Therefore the learned Single Judge ought to have appreciated the fact that the 3^rd

¶76

W.A.360/2020

¶77

¶78

respondent herein issued stop memo to 1^st respondent for non compliance of specific conditions of Consent to Operate. It is mandatory to comply with all the statutory conditions in the Consent to Operate. It is further submitted that the general condition No.1 of Consent to Operate specifically states that the integrated consent is granted subject to the power of the Board to withdraw consent, review and make variation in or revoke all or any of the conditions as the Board deems fit and hence issuance of stop memo by the 3^rd respondent to 1^st respondent is legally perfect.

¶79

It is also submitted that the first respondent failed to obtain clearance as per Kerala Industrial Single Window Clearance Board and Industrial Township Area Development Act, 1999. The 1^st respondent earlier filed a writ petition, W.P(C). No.27541/2019 before this Court seeking police protection and it was dismissed stating that 1^st respondent had not obtained clearance from competent authority under Kerala Industrial Single Window Clearance Board and Industrial Township Area Development Act, 1999. It is also contended that the Kadungalloor Grama Panchayat has passed a resolution dated 14.10.2019 against starting tar mixing unit of the petitioner. The Grama Panchayat also issued Stop Memo dated 31.10.2019 to the petitioner to stop all the construction works

¶80

W.A.360/2020

¶81

¶82

in the property comprised in survey No.130/13 of Kadungalloor Village having an extent of 11.33 Ares stating that the property is wet land.

¶83

Pursuant to the direction issued by the learned Single Judge, the Kerala State Pollution Control Board, respondent No.2, has filed a report, which is extracted hereunder:

¶84

REPORT FILED BY THE ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER, KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, ENVIRONMENTAL SURVEILLANCE CENTRE, ELOOR, 2ND RESPONDENT IN THE ABOVE CASE, AS DIRECTED BY THIS HON’BLE COURT.

¶85

Report filed by P.B.Sreelakshmy, Aged 37 years, W/o J.S.Sajeev Kumar, residing at Thrissur, Environmental Engineer, Kerala State Pollution Control Board (hereinafter referred to as Board), Environmental Surveillance Centre, Udyogamandal PO, Eloor, Ernakulam, as directed by this Hon’ble Court.

¶86

The above Writ Petition is filed inter-alia challenging Ext.P3 communication dated 10-2-2020 issued by the Board. The petitioner had applied for consent to establish [Anexure-R2(a)] from the Board on 24-7-2019 to install a Hot Mix Plant in a Plot at Edayar Industrial area, Ernakulam district. After conducting inspections, the Board has issued consent to establish on 24-7-2019 to the petitioner to establish a Hot Mix Plant with specific directions to comply with the conditions contained therein. The Industry is situated inside the Industrial land which is the boundary of the Industrial Estate. The nearest residence is situated at more than

¶87

W.A.360/2020

¶88

¶89

100 metre from the Unit. It is stated that the Board has issued Circular dated 1-10-2015 [Annexure-R2(b)] prescribing the conditions to be complied with by the Tax Mixing Plants for obtaining temporary consent as well as permanent consents. As per the said circular the Hot Mix Plant of permanent type shall provide a Chimney with 20 metre height, Cyclone Separator, Scrubber, Bag Filter etc. for obtaining consent from the Board. The storage area of raw materials shall be in an enclosed shed and the loading and unloading area shall be provided with dust suppression mechanism. Apart from that, the premises shall have a permanent boundary wall and there shall be a clear distance of 50 meters from the nearby, residence/public establishments. Subsequently the Unit had applied for consent to operate on 8-10-2019 and after conducting a consent enquiry, the Board has issued Exhibit-P1 consent to operate to the Unit on 2-11-2019 with validity upto 31-10-2024.

¶90

Clause 5 of Ext.P1 consent to operate prescribes the conditions, which are to be strictly adhered to by the petitioner Unit. It is submitted that several complaints were received in the Board's Office,alleging dust pollution as well as odour nuisance due to the operation of the Unit. A complaint enquiry was conducted from the Board's Office on 5-2-2020 into the premises of the Unit and had conducted sound and ambient air monitoring in the Industry during day time. In the said complaint enquiry it was observed that many of the consent conditions are not complied with by the Unit. The results of the air monitoring shows that Particulate Matter (PM10) is slightly higher

¶91

W.A.360/2020

¶92

¶93

than the permissible limit. A hearing was conducted on 6- 2-2020, in which the complainants, representative of the Panchayat and the representative of the petitioner Unit participated. According to the complainants and the Panchayat, the pollution problems from the petitioner's Unit is very high and requested the Board to take action for shifting of the Industry. The complainant informed the Board that air pollution problems are severe during night time and the pollution from the Unit is causing severe health issues to the children and public at large. In that circumstances, this respondent decided to conduct an air monitoring including sound measurement during night time. However, the air monitoring could not be conducted due to the agitation from the large segment of people gathered in the site on 7-2-2020. It is submitted that several conditions incorporated in Ext.P1 consent to operate was seen not complied with by the Unit including clauses 5.6, 5.8, 5.9, 5.10, 5.12 and 5.15.

¶94

It is highly essential that the Units shall comply with the consent conditions scrupulously. Since the petitioner Unit failed to comply with many of the consent conditions, the Board has issued Ext.P3 Communication directing the Unit to stop the operation until the Unit has complied with all the consent conditions to the satisfaction of the Board. The above direction was issued by invoking the power under Section 31 (A) of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981.

¶95

It is submitted that a further inspection was conducted by the Board on 11-2-2020 into the premises of the Unit. It was observed that the Unit has not yet

¶96

W.A.360/2020

¶97

¶98

complied with the directions contained in Ext.P3 communication. In the said circumstances, another communication dated 13-2-2020 [Annexure-R2(c)] was issued to the petitioner Unit directing the Unit to comply with the consent conditions, which are not adhered to by the petitioner Unit. The Board had issued direction to the Unit on 10-2-2020 and 13-2-2020 based on the noncompliance of the consent conditions. Apart from the above, the adequacy of pollution control measures installed in the Unit to control air and noise pollution can be assessed only after conducting air monitoring and noise measurement and requirement of additional control measures, if any, can be decided based on the monitoring reports.

¶99

It is respectfully submitted that unless and until all the consent conditions are complied with by the petitioner Unit, pollution potential due to the operation of the said Unit would be very high. The petitioner Unit has not submitted any reply to the Board informing that the defects noted by the Board has been rectified.”

¶100

Annexure-R2(b) Circular dated 01.10.2015 issued by the

¶101

Kerala State Pollution Control Board is extracted hereunder:

¶102

“KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD Pattam P.O., Thiruvananthapuram, 695 004.

¶103

PCB/HO/Circular/2015(4) Dated, 1-10-2016

¶104

CIRCULAR

¶105

Sub:- Granting permission to the Hotmix plants reg.

¶106

W.A.360/2020

¶107

¶108

Ref:— Minutes of the meeting held on 16-9-2015, under the Chairmanship of the Hon’ble Chief Minister.

¶109

In pursuance to the discussions in the presence of the Hon’ble Chief Minister, regarding the establishment of Hotmix plants in the State, it is decided to grant permissions, on the following conditions:

¶110

1. Temporary Permission

¶111

On the basis of the work permits / work orders of the Public Works Department and on the basis of the terms and conditions issued by the KPCB,

¶112

a) If the Work permits/Work order is submitted for a period one year, the permission can be granted in a place Where within 25 meters there shall not be any residential houses or public institutions, on condition that there shall be a chimney having a height of 11 meters and also a security deposit of Rs.2 Lakhs, for a period of 1 year, temporary permission can be given.

¶113

b) If the work permits/Work order is submitted for a period three years, the permission can be granted in a place where within 50 meters there shall not be any residential houses or public institutions, on condition that there shall be a chimney having a height of 15 meters and also a security deposit of Rs.5 Lakhs, for a period of 3 years, temporary permission can be given.

¶114

c) If after 3 years, if the plant is to be functioned, party can apply for permanent permission, on the basis of taking all the pollution control devices and to obtain a permanent permission.

¶115

2. Permanent Permission.

¶116

For getting permanent permission, cyclone separator, scrubber, bag filter of sufficient capacity shall be installed along with the hotmix plant and shall install a chimney having a height of 20 meters. The raw materials shall be kept in a enclosed premises, so as to avoid dust emission at the time of loading and

¶117

W.A.360/2020

¶118

¶119

unloading and there shall be compound Walls in all the four sides and it shall also ensure that there shall not be any residential houses or public institutions within a radius of 50 meters, on the basis of the conditions insisted by the Board.

¶120

Sd/CHAIRMAN”

¶121

Annexure-R2(c) communication dated 13-2-2020 issued by

¶122

the Kerala State Pollution Control Board to the writ petitioner is extracted hereunder:

“PCB/ESC/CTE-31/2019

Date: 13.02.2020

From

The Environmental Engineer

¶127

¶128

M/s. Marysadan APG Infra Pvt. Ltd., V/823, IDA, Edayar

¶129

Sub:- Non compliance of the consent conditions- reg.

¶130

Ref:- 1) Consent to Operate No.PCB/ESC/CO/IC-82/ 19 dated

¶131

03.11.2019 2) Ambient air monitoring conducted on 05.02.2020.

¶132

1. This office letter No. PCB/ICO/O19ERR500877/19 dated 10.02.2020. 4) Your letter no. MAIPL/18/2019-20 dated 10.02.2020 5) Inspection conducted on 11.02.2020

¶133

Sir,

¶134

Board had received complaint against your hot mix plant. Based on the complaint, Board had conducted an ambient air monitoring in your unit on 05.02.2020. The result of ambient air monitoring shows the value of particulate matter (PMIO) is 1Olug/Nm3 exceeding the standards which is the violation of consent

¶135

W.A.360/2020

¶136

¶137

condition no. 5.14. It may also be noted that smell experienced during ambient air monitoring conducted on 05.02.2020 which may be due to fugitive emissions while operation of the unit. During enquiry, it was also noted that you have not complied conditions stipulated in the consent. Hence, letter referred 3^rd above was issued to you directing you to stop the activity in the unit. As per your letter referred 4^th above, Board had again conducted inspection inyour unit on 11.02.2020. During enquiry it is noted that you have not complied the following consent conditions.

¶138

Sl.No .	Condtion No.	Details	Compliance status
1	5.6 & 5.15	Sprinklers shall be provided at solid aggregate storage area, material unloading area and handlingarea	Not complied
2	5.8	Internal roads inside the company premise shall be either tarred on concreted within 15 days	Partially complied
3	5.9	The raw materials shall be stored in an enclosed building	Not complied
4	5.10	Compound wall of adequate height shall be provided in the unit	Partially complied
5	5.12	Sprinklers shall be provided at all dust emission points	Partially complied (sprinklers seen provided only at boundary)

¶139

Hence you are hereby directed to comply the above consent conditions and shall submit the action taken report urgently for initiating further actions.

¶140

Your faithfully Environmental Engineer”

¶141

W.A.360/2020

¶142

¶143

We have heard learned counsel on either side and perused the pleadings and documents on record. The narration of facts made above would make it clear that the subject issue dealt with by the learned Single Judge was in regard to a tar mixing plant conducted by the writ petitioner ie., first respondent in this appeal, in an industrial area.

¶144

The learned Single Judge, after evaluating the situation and taking into account the input provided by the Pollution Control Board, has disposed of the writ petition with appropriate directions to be complied by the writ petitioner in order to conduct the unit. The learned Single Judge has also found that many of the conditions contained in the consent granted by the Pollution Control Board were not complied with by the writ petitioner and accordingly directed to comply with certain defects noted and on compliance of the same, time was granted to comply with the rest of the conditions. It was accordingly learned Single Judge has permitted the petitioner to conduct the unit, if the writ petitioner has substantially rectified the defects pointed out by the Pollution Control Board. However, also granted liberty to the Pollution Control Board to take continued action in accordance with Ext.P3 stop memo issued by the Pollution Control Board.

¶145

W.A.360/2020

¶146

¶147

Now, the appeal is filed by the additional respondents 4 to 6, basically contending that the activity carried on by writ petitioner is an illegal activity since due to the conduct of the unit, people residing in the area are put to various difficulties and due to the pollution emanating from the unit, people are unable to have a quiet and pollution free life. It is also submitted that even if the conditions are complied with, in terms of the conditions issued by the Pollution Control Board, people residing in the locality will be put to innumerable difficulties.

¶148

We have evaluated the rival submissions made across the Bar. In fact, during the pendency of the writ petition, a report has been submitted before the learned Single Judge, pursuant to the directions issued, which we have extracted above, wherein defects have been pointed out by the Pollution Control Board.

¶149

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that adequate steps are being taken to comply with the conditions contained in the consent and now pointed out by the Pollution Control Board in its report.

¶150

On a perusal of the report of the Pollution Control Board, we find that five conditions contained in the consent are not followed by the writ petitioner, which is enumerated in the report dated

¶151

W.A.360/2020

¶152

¶153

13.2.2020, extracted above. Therefore, it is quite explicit and clear that when a consent is issued to operate a particular unit by the Pollution Control Board, the owner of the unit is bound to comply with the said conditions in order to eliminate pollution and avoid complaint of the people residing in the nearby locality. It was reported that there are no residential houses or public institutions within the radius of 50 meters, which is a mandatory requirement to grant consent by the Pollution Control Board. It was taking into account these aspects that the learned Single Judge has permitted the petitioner to carry on with the unit, if the conditions are substantially complied with, and also on the basis of the undertaking made to comply with all conditions on or before 30.3.2020. Therefore, it is discernible that the learned Single Judge employed a balanced approach to the issue so as to protect the interest of the industrial unit and the people residing in the area. The judgment of the learned Single also ensures compliance of all conditions contained in the consent issued by the Pollution Control Board by the writ petitioner/1^st respondent within a reasonable time.

¶154

On evaluation of the pleadings and documents produced by the parties, we are of the view that no strong grounds are made out by the appellants to interfere with the judgment of learned Single

¶155

W.A.360/2020

¶156

¶157

Judge. We find that the discretion exercised by learned Single Judge is in accordance with law. Therefore, appeal has no sustenance and accordingly it is dismissed. However, we make it clear that the Pollution Control Board shall ensure all conditions contained in the consent and noted in the report dated 13.2.2020 are complied with by the writ petitioner in terms of the directions contained in the judgment of learned Single Judge. No costs.

¶158

S. Manikumar, Chief Justice

¶159

Sd/Shaji. P. Chaly, Judge

sou.

W.A.360/2020

APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

¶165

ANNEXURE R2(a) - TRUE COPY OF THE CONSENT TO ESTABLISHMENT ISSUED BY THE BORD TO

¶166

THE PETITIONER UNIT DATED 24.7.2019.

¶167

ANNEXURE-R2(b) - TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR DATED

¶168

10.10.2015 ISSUED BY THE BOARD.

¶169

ANNEXURE R2(C) - TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 13.2.2020 ISSUED BY THE BOARD TO THE PETITIONER UNIT.

Ranjan.a.S v. Mary Sadan Apg Infra Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ranjan.a.S v. Mary Sadan Apg Infra Pvt. Ltd.

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

Govindan Palikappil Vs Union of India

The Kerala High Court Advocates Association, Vs the State of Kerala

Jossey Mathew Vs State of Kerala

K.G.Purushothaman Vs State of Kerala

S.Jayasree Vs Repco Home Finance Ltd.

P.P.Ramachandra Kaimal Vs State of Kerala