Dismissed

Mathunni E.I v. Kerala State Pollution Control Board

Kerala HC12 Nov 2021WP(C)/24019/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition was dismissed as all issues were deemed settled after the Appellate Authority was reconstituted. The court instructed that if petitioners approached the Authority with the judgment, the matter would be taken up forthwith. Any further grievances regarding violation of previous directions were directed to be addressed via a contempt case.

What did the court decide?

Petition closed; directed to approach Appellate Authority forthwith; remedy for violation of previous directions is via contempt case.

Mathunni E.I Vs Kerala State Pollution Control Board — Environment and Pollution | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

WP(C) NO. 24019 OF 2021

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN

¶6

FRIDAY, THE 12^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021 / 21ST KARTHIKA, 1943

¶7

WP(C) NO. 24019 OF 2021

¶8

PETITIONER/S:

¶9

1 MATHUNNI E.I AGED 71 YEARS S/O. ITTY MATHEW, EDATTUKKARAN HOUSE, KURUVILASSERRY VILLAGE, CHALAKKUDY TALUK, THRISSUR 680 680 732

¶10

2 STELLA MATHEW AGED 62 YEARS W/O. MATHUNNI, EDATTUKKARAN HOUSE, KURUVILASSERRY VILLAGE, CHALAKKUDY TALUK, THRISSUR 680 680 732

¶11

BY ADVS. SINDHU SANTHALINGAM ABRAHAM K GEORGE

¶12

RESPONDENT/S:

¶13

1 KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD PATTOM P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN 695 004

¶14

2 CHIEF ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, PATTOM P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 004

¶15

3 ASSISTANT ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, PATTOM P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 004

¶16

4 MALA GRAMA PANCHAYATH REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MALA THRISSUR 680 732

¶17

5 DISTRICT TOWN PLANNER PLANNING BHAVAN, CIVIL STATION, AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR 680 003

¶18

WP(C) NO. 24019 OF 2021 2

¶19

6	INDIAN OIL CORPORATION REPRESENTED BY DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER, COCHIN DIVISIONAL OFFICE, PANAMPILLY AVENUE, PANAMPILLY NAGAR P.O, KOCHI 682 036
7	TOMY GEORGE AGED 67 YEARS S/O. GEORGE JOSEPH, MALIYEKKAL HOUSE, KURUVILASERRY VILLAGE, CHALAKKUDY TALUK, THRISSUR 680 732
8	STELLA TOMMY AGED 60 YEARS W/O. TOMMY, MALIYEKKAL HOUSE, KURUVILASERRY VILLAGE, CHALAKKUDY TALUK, THRISSUR 680 732
9	ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE CIVIL STATION, AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR 680 003
10	DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CIVIL STATION, AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR 680 003
11	STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001
12	TAHSILDAR, KURUVILASERRY VILLAGE, CHALAKKUDY TALUK, THRISSUR 680 732
13	VILLAGE OFFICER KURUVILASERRY VILLAGE, CHALAKKUDY TALUK, THRISSUR 680 732
	BY ADVS. SHRI.PHILIP T.VARGHESE, SC, MALA GRAMA PANCHAYATH R.SUNIL KUMAR

¶20

OTHER PRESENT:

¶21

SRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR, SC , SMT. VIDYA KURIAKOSE, GP

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12.11.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

WP(C) NO. 24019 OF 2021

¶24

¶25

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J

¶26

W.P.(C.) No. 24019 of 2021

¶27

Dated this the 12^th day of November, 2021

¶28

JUDGMENT

¶29

The above writ petition is filed with following prayers :

¶30

“(i) To issue a writ of certiorari, or other appropriate writ, order or direction to quash Ext.P6 NOC issued by 3^rd respondent and Ext.P1 consent issued by 1^st respondent for establishment of fuel station.

¶31

(ii) To issue a writ of mandamus, or other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing respondents 1, 2 and 3 to measure the distance as stipulated as per Exts.P2 and P4 for establishment of new fuel outlets.

¶32

(iii) Direct respondents 3, 4, 12 and 13 to find out the radial distance between the petitioners residence and proposed fuel station.

¶33

(iv) To grant such other reliefs in accordance with law and fact of the case as this Honourable Court deem think fit.”

¶34

The main grievance of the petitioners is that there is

¶35

no appellate authority constituted to consider the appeal

¶36

submitted by the petitioners and hence, they are coming with this second writ petition. This Court as per Ext.P12 judgment

¶37

WP(C) NO. 24019 OF 2021

¶38

¶39

issued the following directions:

¶40

1. “The petitioner is free to file an appeal along with a stay petition against Ext.P1 before the appellate authority as per Section 28 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and Section 31 of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981, within one week from today.

¶41

2. If such an appeal along with the stay petition is received, the appellate authority will consider the stay petition immediately, if the same is filed after giving notice to respondents 5, 6 and 8 to 11. If the stay petition is filed after giving notice to respondents 5, 6 and 8 to 11, the appellate authority will consider the same within one week from the date of receipt of the same.

¶42

3. The 3rd respondent is directed to consider Ext.P4 and pass appropriate orders in it within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶43

4. I make it clear that I have not considered the matter on merit and the appellate authority and the 3rd respondent are free to pass appropriate orders in accordance to law.”

¶44

3. Almost all contentions raised in the above writ

¶45

petition are raised in this writ petition also. When this writ petition came up for consideration on 5.11.2021, this Court directed the learned Government Pleader to get instructions whether the Water Appellate Authority is constituted and sitting. Today, the Government Pleader submitted that the Water Appellate Authority is reconstituted and the sitting will start in the last week of this month. If that is the case, the grievance of the petitioners that the sitting of the Water

¶46

WP(C) NO. 24019 OF 2021 5

¶47

Appellate Authority is not there, cannot be accepted. Considering the urgency raised by the petitioners, it is ordered that, if the petitioners approached the Appellate Authority along with this judgment, the Appellate Authority will take up this matter, forthwith as directed by this Court in Ext.P12 judgment. The other grievance raised by the petitioners is that the 3^rd respondent is not passing final orders as directed by this Court in Ext.P12 judgment. If the petitioners have got any such grievance about the violation of any directions in Ext.P12 judgment, the petitioners' remedy is to file a contempt case before this Court.

¶48

With the above observations, this writ petition is closed.

¶49

SD/-

¶50

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN

¶51

JUDGE

¶52

SKS

¶53

WP(C) NO. 24019 OF 2021

¶54

¶55

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 24019/2021

¶56

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶57

Exhibit P1	A TRUE COPY OF THE CONSENT TO ESTABLISH DATED 30-09-2020 AND THE SITE PLAN ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT ON BEHALF OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P1A	A TRUE COPY OF THE KEY PLAN OF THE PROPOSED COMMERCIAL SALES OFFICE BUILDING AT KURUVILASSERY VILLAGE FOR THE RETAIL OUTLET
Exhibit P2	A TRUE COPY OF THE EXTRACT OF THE CIRCULAR DATED 24-02-2020 ISSUED BY THE KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD PRESCRIBING DISTANCE CRITERIA FOR NEW PETROL PUMPS.
Exhibit P3	A TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 29-04-2021
Exhibit P4	A TRUE COPY OF THE CLARIFICATORY CIRCULAR DATED 18-08-2020 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT CLARIFYING THE SITING CRITERIA FOR NEW RETAILS OUTLETS
Exhibit P5	A TRUE COPY OF THE SITE PLAN OF WARD NO. 10 OF KURUVILASSERY VILLAGE SUBMITTED TO THE 9TH RESPONDENT ON 05-03-2020
Exhibit P6	A TRUE COPY OF THE NOC NO. DCTSR/4800/2020/C6 DATED NIL ISSUED BY THE 9TH RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P7	A TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 17-02-2021 SUBMITTED BY THE ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER BINFI JOSEPH IN OS 25/2021 BEFORE THE SUB COURT, IRINJALAKUDA
Exhibit P8	A TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS 7 AND 8 IN WP(C) NO.

¶58

WP(C) NO. 24019 OF 2021

¶59

¶60

	5112 OF 2021 AND WRIT PETITIONERS IN THE PRESENT WRIT PETITION BEFORE THIS HON'BLE COURT.
Exhibit P9	A TRUE COPY OF THE IA NO. 4 OF 2021 DATED 13-08-2021 IN WP(C) NO. 5112 OF 2021 FILED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE HON'BLE COURT FOR APPOINTMENT OF ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER.
Exhibit P10	A TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT DATED 01-09-2021 FILED ON BEHALF OF 6TH RESPONDENT IN W.P(C) NO. 5112 OF 2021 BEFORE THIS HON'BLE COURT.
Exhibit P11	A TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENTS 7 AND 8 IN WP(C0 NO. 5112 OF 2021 AND RESPONDENTS 7 AND 8 IN THE PRESENT WRIT PETITION BEFORE THIS HON'BLE COURT ON 31-08-2021
Exhibit P12	A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED IN W.P9C) NO. 5112 OF 2021 DATED 07-09-2021
Exhibit P13	A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 05-05- 2021 SUBMITTED BY THE FIRST PETITIONER BEFORE THE 10TH RESPONDENT AGAINST THE ESTABLISHMENT OF FUEL STATION.
Exhibit P14	A TRUE COPY OF THE STOP MEMO DATED 28-04- 2021 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT PANCHAYATH INFORMING 7TH AND 8TH RESPONDENT TO STOP THE WORK RELATING TO THE FILLING UP OF THE FUEL TANK WITHOUT COMPLYING WITH ANY OF THE STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS.
Exhibit P15	A TRUE COPY OF THE CHALLAN DATED 13-09- 2021 WITH PARTICULARS OF FEE PAYMENT FOR FILING APPEAL BEFORE THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY.
Exhibit P16	A TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 07-10-2021

¶61

WP(C) NO. 24019 OF 2021

¶62

¶63

	SUBMITTED BY THE 13TH RESPONDENT TO THE 12TH RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P17	A TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 26-12-2020
	PREPARED BY THE MALA POLICE STATION WITH REGARD TO THE ACCIDENTS THAT HAS OCCURED
	IN BETWEEN KOTTAMURI JUNCTION AND VALIYAPRAMBU JUNCTION.
Exhibit P18	A TRUE COPY OF THE INTIMATION DATED 18-10-
	2021 SENT BY THE SECRETARY OF THE WATER
	APPELLATE AUTHORITY TO THE PETITIONERS.

Mathunni E.I v. Kerala State Pollution Control Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mathunni E.I v. Kerala State Pollution Control Board

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

Vinila Varghese Vs the Branch Manager

Abdul Azeez Chetyanthod Vs the District Police Chief

K.Nazar Vs the State of Kerala

Deepa Alias Vs State Bank of India SBI

Sugathakumari K.C Vs Revenue Divisional Officer

Sharief Nazimudeen Vs Principal Secretary,Forest and Others