Disposed

Jobin Sebastian v. Josemon J

Kerala HC10 Sept 2021Con.Case(C)/1395/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a contempt case regarding a noise pollution inspection in a tyre retreading unit, the High Court accepted submissions that the statutory authority had communicated the requisite decision to the parties on August 31, 2021, fulfilling the earlier court order.

What did the court decide?

The contempt case was closed upon the submission that the requisite order was communicated to the parties on August 31, 2021.

Jobin Sebastian Vs Josemon J — Environment and Pollution | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 10^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 19TH BHADRA, 1943 CON.CASE(C) NO. 1395 OF 2021

¶5

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 02.12.2020 IN WP(C).NO.9857 OF 2020 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM

¶6

PETITIONER/S:

¶7

JOBIN SEBASTIAN, AGED 37 YEARS MANAGING PARTNER, PEE JAY TREADS, S/O SEBASTIAN JOSEPH, PANAMTHANATHU HOUSE, ULLANADU.P.O, ALAMATTOM, PALA-686651.

¶8

BY ADV I.DINESH MENON

¶9

RESPONDENT/S:

¶10

1 JOSEMON J, ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER, KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, DISTRICT OFFICE, SRINIVASA IYER ROAD, KOTTAYAM-686001. (FATHERS NAME AND AGE IS NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER).

¶11

2 HAREES.A.M., ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER, KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, DISTRICT OFFICE, SRINIVASA IYER ROAD, KOTTAYAM686001. (FATHERS NAME AND AGE IS NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER).

¶12

OTHER PRESENT:

¶13

SRI T.NAVEEN - STANDING COUNSEL

¶14

THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10.09.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

CON.CASE(C) NO. 1395 OF 2021

¶16

-2-

¶17

J U D G M E N T

¶18

The petitioner has filed this contempt of court case alleging non-compliance of the direction contained in Annexure A-1 judgment of this Court dated 02.12.2020 in W.P.(C).No.9857 of 2020, whereby that writ petition was disposed of with the following directions:

¶19

(i) The 2^nd respondent Environmental Engineer shall conduct an inspection in the petitioner’s tyre retreading unit on 09.12.2020 at 11.00 am , in order to verify whether the petitioner has already complied with the direction contained in Annexure R2(b) by enclosing the building with sound proofing materials, along the side of the 6^th respondent's residence, in order to reduce the sound level further. The petitioner and the 6^th respondent or his authorised representative shall be personally present in the unit, at the time of inspection.

¶20

(ii) After such preliminary inspection, the 2^nd respondent Environmental Engineer shall permit trial run in the petitioner’s tyre retreading unit, for a period of three days, in order to find out whether the ambient air quality standards in respect of noise during ‘day time’ (from 6.00 am to 10.00 pm) and ‘night time’ (from 10.00 pm to 6.00 am) is within the permissible limits in the Schedule of the Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000, read with Ext.P16 Government notification dated 20.04.2002

¶21

CON.CASE(C) NO. 1395 OF 2021

¶22

-3-

¶23

issued in exercise of the powers conferred under sub-rule (2) of Rule 3 of the said Rules.

¶24

(iii) After the trial run, the report of the 2^nd respondent Environmental Engineer on the ambient air quality standards in respect of noise in the petitioner’s tyre retreading unit shall be furnished to the petitioner and the 6^th respondent, within a period of three days, and thereafter, the 2^nd respondent shall conduct a personal hearing, within a further period of one week, and take an appropriate decision on the matter, after adverting to the legal and factual contentions raised by the petitioner and the 6^th respondent. The decision so taken shall be communicated to the petitioner and the 6^th respondent, forthwith.

¶25

(iv) Till such time, the interim order of this Court dated 12.05.2020 shall continue to be in force.

¶26

On 08.09.2021, when this contempt case came up for

¶27

admission, the learned Standing Counsel for the Kerala State Pollution Control Board submitted that the 2^nd respondent Environmental Engineer has already taken a decision pursuant to the direction contained in Annexure A-1 judgment, which shall be communicated to the petitioner and also to the 6^th respondent in the writ petition forthwith.

¶28

Today when the matter is taken up for consideration,

¶29

the learned Standing Counsel on instructions would submit that

¶30

CON.CASE(C) NO. 1395 OF 2021

¶31

-4-

¶32

as a matter of fact order has already been communicated to the petitioner, who is the Managing Partner of M/s. Pee Jay Treads and also to the 6^th respondent, on 31.08.2021 itself.

¶33

Recording the abovesaid submission made by the learned Standing Counsel for the Pollution Control Board, this contempt of court case is closed.

¶34

Sd/- ANIL K.NARENDRAN, JUDGE.

¶35

bkn/-

¶36

CON.CASE(C) NO. 1395 OF 2021

¶37

-5-

¶38

APPENDIX OF CON.CASE(C) 1395/2021

¶39

PETITIONER'S ANNEXURE

¶40

Annexure A1 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC NO.9857/2020 DATED 02.12.2020.

Jobin Sebastian v. Josemon J

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jobin Sebastian v. Josemon J

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

P.K.Ponnamma Vs Sugatha Pradeep

Sagar K.K Vs Sony Mathai

A.Balakrishnan, Vs Ajayakumar

Ajithkumar G. Vs Narasimhugara T.L. Reddy

Saneesh Jose, Vs Daisy Chacko

Indus Towers Limited, Vs the District Telecom Committee