Disposed

T.T. Mathai v. the Environmental Engineer

Kerala HC11 Aug 2020WP(C)/28148/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner residents filed a writ petition seeking closure of an unlicensed piggery operated by a respondent, alleging pollution and nuisance near drinking water wells. The court directed the Secretary of the Grama Panchayat to ensure strict compliance with previous closure orders by seeking police assistance to close the facility.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Secretary of the 3rd respondent to take steps to close the piggery by seeking police assistance from the 6th respondent Circle Inspector of Police.

T.T. Mathai Vs the Environmental Engineer — Environment and Pollution | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF AUGUST 2020 / 20TH SRAVANA, 1942

¶5

WP(C).No.28148 OF 2018(P)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

1 T.T. MATHAI AGED 59 YEARS THEKKANATH HOUSE, KOLAKAPPARA P.O, WAYANAD DISTRICT 673591

¶8

2 SALU POULOSE, PALLATHKKUDI HOUSE, KOLAKAPPARA P.O, WAYANAD DISTRICT 673591

¶9

BY ADVS. SRI.M.P.ASHOK KUMAR SRI.P.C.GOPINATH SMT.BINDU SREEDHAR SMT.R.S.MANJULA

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

1 THE ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER

¶12

POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, DISTRICT OFFICE, JASAM COMPLEX, PINANGODE ROAD, KALPETTA, WAYANAD 673121

¶13

2 THE MEDICAL OFFICER, COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTRE, MEENANGADY, WAYANAD DISTRICT 673591

¶14

3 MEENANGADI GRAMA PANCHAYATH

¶15

REP BY ITS SECRETARY, MEENANGADI P.O., WAYANAD DISTRICT 673591

¶16

4 THE TAHASILDAR, SULTHAN BATHERI, WAYANAD DISTRICT 673592

¶17

5 DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATH CIVIL STATION, KALPETTA NORTH,WAYANAD- 673122

¶18

6 CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE MEENANGADI POLICE STATION, WAYANAD-673591

¶19

7 K.V. RAJAN, S/O. VELAYUDHAN, KAVINISSERY HOUSE, KOLAKAPPARA.P.O., WAYANAD DISTRICT 673591

¶20

WP(C).No.28148 OF 2018(P)

¶21

¶22

R1 BY SRI. T.NAVEEN SC, KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, R2 & 4 TO 6 BY SRI JESTIN MATHEW-GOVERNMENT PLEADER R3 BY ADV. ASOK M.CHERIAN

¶23

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11.08.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶24

WP(C).No.28148 OF 2018(P)

¶25

¶26

JUDGMENT

¶27

The petitioners, who are the residents of A.K.Junction in Choorimalakunnu, within the 3^rd respondent Meenangadi Grama Panchayat, has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the 3^rd respondent to take urgent steps to close down the piggery conducted by the 7^th respondent in Choorimalakunnu at A.K.Junction in the land comprised in Re-survey No.344/5, 6, 7, 8 of Krishnagiri Village and to seize and remove the pigs with the aid of the 6^th respondent Circle Inspector of Police, Meenangadi. They have also sought for a direction to respondents 1 to 6 to take immediate steps for seizing pigs from the piggery situated in the aforesaid property and to take appropriate legal action against the 7^th respondent for disobeying the stop memo issued by respondents 1 to 5. The further relief sought for is a declaration that the 7^th respondent has no right to conduct piggery in Meenangadi Grama Panchayath, without obtaining the required statutory licenses.

¶28

In the writ petition, it is alleged that the 7^th

¶29

WP(C).No.28148 OF 2018(P)

¶30

¶31

respondent is illegally conducting piggery near to the residence of the petitioners, in the land comprised in Resurvey No.344/5, 6, 7, 8 of Krishnagiri Village, without obtaining any licence from the statutory authorities. The piggery is within 20 metres from three drinking water wells in that locality, including a Panchayat well. Since the functioning of the piggery is causing nuisance to the petitioners and others and also polluting the area, they filed Ext.P1 complaint dated 18.04.2018 before respondents 1 to 5 to take necessary steps to close down the piggery conducted by the 7^th respondent. Based on that complaint, the 3^rd respondent Grama Panchayat conducted site inspection and issued a stop memo dated 21.04.2018 directing the 7^th respondent to close down the piggery. The 3^rd respondent has also requested respondents 1 and 2 to take appropriate action and the said fact was informed to the 1^st petitioner by the State Public Information Officer in the office of the 3^rd respondent Grama Panchayat, vide Ext.P2 communication dated 04.02.2018. The 1^st respondent Environmental Engineer in the office of the Kerala State

¶32

WP(C).No.28148 OF 2018(P)

¶33

¶34

Pollution Control Board, District Office, Wayanad conducted site inspection and issued Ext.P3 order dated 05.05.2018 directing the 7^th respondent to close down the piggery. The said fact was also reported to the 3^rd respondent, vide Ext.P4 dated 05.05.2018. The 2^nd respondent Medical Officer, Community Health Centre, Meenangadi has also issued a stop memo to the 7^th respondent. The 2^nd respondent filed a complaint against the 7^th respondent before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Sulthan Batheri for endangering public health and the said fact was informed to the 1^st petitioner, vide Ext.P5 communication dated 11.05.2018 of the Public Information Officer in that office. The 4^th respondent Tahasildar, Meenangadi, in Ext.P6 order dated 30.05.2018, found that the piggery of the 7^th respondent is causing pollution and therefore, in exercise of his powers under Section 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ordered closure of that piggery. The grievance of the petitioners is that even after the issuance of the stop memos and closure order, the 7^th respondent is conducting piggery in violation of those memos and order.

¶35

WP(C).No.28148 OF 2018(P)

¶36

¶37

The petitioners and others submitted Ext.P7 complaint dated 11.06.2018 before the District Collector, Wayanad. Placing reliance on Ext.P8 communication dated 04.07.2018 of the 5^th respondent Deputy Director of Panchayat, the petitioners would point out that, fine has already been imposed on the 7^th respondent under Rule 12 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj (Licensing of Livestock Farms) Rules 2012 and that, the 3^rd respondent was directed to take stringent action against the 7^th respondent for disobeying the statutory orders.

¶38

On 21.08.2018, when this writ petition came up for admission, the learned Government Pleader took notice for respondents 2, 4, 5 and 6 and the learned Standing Counsel took notice for the 1^st respondent. This Court issued urgent notice by speed post to respondents 3 and 7.

¶39

On 04.08.2020, when this writ petition came up for consideration, this Court passed the following order;

¶40

“Despite service of notice, none appears for the 7^th respondent.

¶41

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the 7^th respondent is even now conducting pig farm in the land comprised in Re.survey Nos.344/5, 6, 7 and 8 of Krishnagiri

¶42

WP(C).No.28148 OF 2018(P)

¶43

¶44

Village without obtaining licence from the 3^rd respondent Grama Panchayat and consent to operate from the Kerala State Polllution Control Board, ignoring the specific direction issued by the 1^st respondent Environmental Engineer in Ext.P3 order to close down the pig farm.

¶45

The learned Standing Counsel for Pollution Control Board and the learned Government Pleader for respondents 2 and 4 to 6 seeks time to get instructions.”

¶46

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Standing Counsel for the 1^st respondent, the learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents 2 and 4 to 6 and also the learned counsel for the 3^rd respondent Grama Panchayat. Despite service of notice, none appears for the 7^th respondent.

¶47

The learned counsel for the petitioners would reiterate that the 7^th respondent is even now conducting pig farm in the land comprised in Re.survey Nos.344/5, 6, 7 and 8 of Krishnagiri Village without obtaining licence from the 3^rd respondent Grama Panchayat and consent to operate from the Kerala State Polllution Control Board, ignoring the specific direction issued by the 1^st respondent Environmental

¶48

WP(C).No.28148 OF 2018(P)

¶49

¶50

Engineer in Ext.P3 order to close down that pig farm.

¶51

The learned Standing Counsel for the 3^rd respondent

¶52

Grama Panchayat would submit that extension of time granted by the Panchayat to the 7^th respondent to close down the piggery had already expired on 29.09.2018.

¶53

The learned Standing Counsel for the 1^st respondent Pollution Control Board would submit that by Ext.P3, the 7^th respondent was directed to close down the piggery.

¶54

Despite stop memo dated 21.04.2018 issued by the Secretary of the 3^rd respondent Grama Panchayat; Ext.P3 closure order dated 05.05.2018 issued by the 1^st respondent Environmental Engineer; and Ext.P6 order dated 30.05.2018 issued by the 4^th respondent Tahasildar and Executive Magistrate, the 7^th respondent is conducting piggery in the property in question. On receipt of notice in this writ petition, the 7^th respondent has not chosen to enter appearance. As submitted by the learned Standing Counsel for the 3^rd respondent Grama Panchayat, an extension of time granted to the 7^th respondent to close down the piggery had already expired on 29.09.2018. In such circumstances,

¶55

WP(C).No.28148 OF 2018(P)

¶56

¶57

it is for the Secretary of the 3^rd respondent Grama Panchayat to ensure strict compliance of the stop memo dated 21.04.2018, which was followed by Ext.P3 closure order, seeking police assistance by approaching the 6^th respondent Circle Inspector of Police, invoking the provisions under clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 252 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994.

¶58

In such circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of by directing the Secretary of the 3^rd respondent Grama Panchayat to take necessary steps to close down the piggery conducted by the 7^th respondent without obtaining necessary licence/consent from the statutory authorities, by seeking police assistance from the 6^th respondent Circle Inspector of Police, Meenangadi. On such request being made, the 6^th respondent shall render necessary police assistance for closure of the piggery conducted by the 7^th respondent in the property in question.

¶59

Sd/-

¶60

ANIL K.NARENDRAN, JUDGE

¶61

AV/12/8

¶62

WP(C).No.28148 OF 2018(P)

¶63

¶64

APPENDIX

¶65

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶66

EXHIBIT P1 PHOTOCOPY OF THE COMPLAINT EXHIBIT P2 PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPLY DATED 04.06.2018 TO THE RTI ENQUIRY GIVEN BY THE PANCHAYATH INFORMATION OFFICER TO THE PETITIONER

¶67

EXHIBIT P3 PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER DATED 05.05.2018 PASSED BY POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD EXHIBIT P4 PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPORT DATED 05.05.2018 EXHIBIT P5 PHOTOCOPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 11.05.2018 SENT TO THE 1ST PETITIONER EXHIBIT P6 PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER NO.A4-5263/18 ISSUED BY THE EXECUTIVE MAGISTRATE & TAHASILDAR, S. BATHERY DATED 30.05.2018 EXHIBIT P7 PHOTOCOPY OF THE COMPLAINT FIELD BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR ON 11.06.2018 EXHIBIT P8 PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER DATED 04.07.2018 ISSUED BY tHE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATH

T.T. Mathai v. the Environmental Engineer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T.T. Mathai v. the Environmental Engineer

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

A.v.Mammad Vs Chelembra Grama Panchayath

Koyanni Vs the Local Level Monitoring Committee

William George Vs Aluva Municipality

Saju Jacob Vs State of Kerala

Kamalakshi L Vs the State of Kerala

Ajayan Vs the Secretary