Disposed

K.J Joseph v. Ignatious K.J

Kerala HC21 Jun 2023WP(C)/7398/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court disposed of a writ petition challenging an interim order by the Air Appellate Authority regarding bakery operations. The court directed that the petitioner's operation of the bakery, which was found in violation of a consent order, be kept in abeyance for two weeks while the appeal is pending in the lower forum.

What did the court decide?

The operation of Exhibit P11 shall be kept in abeyance for a period of 2 weeks from today. The Pollution Control Board is directed to verify compliance.

K.J Joseph Vs Ignatious K.J — Environment and Pollution | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 21^ST DAY OF JUNE 2023 / 31ST JYAISHTA, 1945

¶4

WP(C) NO. 7398 OF 2023

¶5

PETITIONER:

¶6

K.J JOSEPH AGED 50 YEARS S/O. LATE K.M JACOB, KONNOTH HOUSE, MUNDAMVELI P.O, KOCHI, PIN - 682507 BY ADVS. S.SUJIN B.BILWIN KEERTHI M. POOJA SURENDRAN

¶7

RESPONDENTS:

¶8

1 IGNATIOUS K.J AGED 58 YEARS S/O.K.I JOHN, KOLLAMPARAMBIL, MUNDAVELI P.O, KOCHI, PIN - 682507 2 THE ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD DISTRICT OFFICE 1, ERNAKULAM, GANDHI NAGAR, KOCHI, PIN - 682020 3 THE AIR APPELLATE AUTHORITY THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PIN - 695001 BY ADVS. SAHASRANAMAN PB NAVEEN T T.S.HARIKUMAR(K/782/1989) G.N.DEEPA(K/001665/1999)

¶9

B.S SYMANTAK- GP

¶10

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21.06.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶11

¶12

WP(C) NO.7398 OF 2023

¶13

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.

¶14

-----------------------------W.P.(C)No.7398 of 2023

¶15

Dated this the 21^st day of June, 2023 JUDGMENT

¶16

The above writ petition is filed with the

¶17

following prayers:

¶18

“(i) To issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, to quash Ext P11 order passed by the respondent Appellate Authority;

¶19

(ii) To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing to taken up the Ext P9 appeal and the interim application along with appeal and consider the same in accordance with law;

¶20

(iii) To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing to consider Ext P12 petition;

¶21

(iv) Dispense with the translation of vernacular documents;

¶22

(v) To issue such other further reliefs as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of this case.”[SIC]

¶23

¶24

WP(C) NO.7398 OF 2023

¶25

When this writ petition came up for consideration on 03.03.2023, this Court passed

¶26

the following order:

¶27

“Learned Standing Counsel takes notice for the Kerala State Pollution Control Board. Issue notice to the 1 st respondent by special messenger. Notice to the Air Appellate Authority is dispensed with for the time being.

¶28

2. The writ petition is filed challenging the interim order passed by the Air Appellate Authority, Thiruvananthapuram in I.A.No.39/2022 in Appeal No.11/2022 wherein the following directions are issued:

¶29

"It is submitted by the counsel for the Pollution Control Board that the unit of the petitioner is engaged in baking of cake in violation the clauses in the consent order. Admittedly, there is functioning of baking unit. Since the consent order does not permit baking in the unit, the prayer in the petition is rejected. The Pollution Control Board can proceed with the steps as per order issued on 25.04.2022."

¶30

3. Apparently, in the consent to operate order

¶31

¶32

WP(C) NO.7398 OF 2023

¶33

issued by the Pollution Control Board, a condition was incorporated that the petitioner shall not bake cake in the unit. Apparently, the complaint made against the petitioner is that the petitioner is baking cake;it was thereupon that the interim order is passed by the Air Appellate Authority.

¶34

4 . Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is prepared to abide by the condition contained in the consent order. In that view of the matter, there will be a stay of Ext.P11 interim order dated 04.02.2023 in the aforesaid I.A. and appeal for a period of two weeks on condition that the petitioner complies with the conditions contained in the consent to operate order. The Pollution Control Board is directed to verify the same.”

¶35

2 . The writ petition is filed challenging

¶36

Exhibit P11 order. Admittedly, that is an appealable order. Now, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that an appeal is already filed and the stay petition is being considered by the Appellate Authority. It is further submitted that the petitioner is functioning

¶37

¶38

WP(C) NO.7398 OF 2023

¶39

the bakery based on the interim order. To facilitate the petitioner to obtain necessary orders from the Appellate Authority, the interim order can be extended for a further period of two weeks.

¶40

Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction that the operation of Exhibit P11 shall be kept in abeyance for a period of 2 weeks from today.

¶41

Sd/-

¶42

SSK/21/06

¶43

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE

¶44

WP(C) NO.7398 OF 2023

APPENDIX

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

Exhibit P1	TRUE COPY OF THE CONSENT VARIATION ORDER DATED 31/08/2021 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT
Exhibit P2	TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 03/01/2022 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE BOARD
Exhibit P3	TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 10/01/2022 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT
Exhibit P4	TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 28/01/2022 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.
Exhibit P5	TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 15/09/2021 FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN WP(C) NO. 15231 OF 2021.
Exhibit P6	TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 04/04/2022 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT AND ADDRESSED TO THE PETITIONER
Exhibit P7	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 25/04/2022 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT AND ADDRESSED TO THE PETITIONER
Exhibit P8	TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 29/04/2022 IN W.P.(C) NO.14928/2022

¶49

WP(C) NO.7398 OF 2023

¶50

¶51

Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF THE I.A NO.40/2022 DATED 06/10/2022 IN APPEAL NO.11/2022 FILED BY THE PETITIONER. Exhibit P10 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 13/06/2022 IN RP NO.417/2022. Exhibit P11 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 04/02/2023 IN I.A NO.39/2022 IN APPEAL NO.11/2022 BY THE AIR APPELLATE AUTHORITY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM Exhibit P12 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION ALONG WITH AFFIDAVIT DATED 25/02/2023 TO RECALL ORDER IN I.A NO.39/2022 IN APPEAL NO.11/2022

¶52

Exhibit.R.1 (a) True copy of the Consent to Operate No. PCB/DO1/EKM/ICO/G20ERR750172/21, dated 30-03-2021

¶53

Exhibit.R.1 (c) True copy of the Trade License issued by the Cochin Corporation License No. C7/15/2021-22, dated 23-06-2021 for the year 2021-22

¶54

Exhibit.R.1 (d) True copy of the proceedings of the Air Appellate Authority, dated 22-10-2022

¶55

Exhibit.R.1 (e) True copy of the order of the 2nd respondent, dated 09-02-2023

¶56

Exhibit.R.1 (f) True copy of the stop memo issued by the 2nd respondent, dated 1901-2021

¶57

WP(C) NO.7398 OF 2023

¶58

¶59

Exhibit.R.1 (b) True photostat copy of the Stop Memo issued by the Cochin Corporation, dated 17-12-2020 (with legible print out)

¶60

RESPONDENT ANNEXURES

¶61

Annexure R2(a) True copy of the direction issued by the Pollution Control Board to the Unit as per communication No. PCB/EKM/DO-1/OA-32/21 dated 27-22023.

¶62

//TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE

K.J Joseph v. Ignatious K.J

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.J Joseph v. Ignatious K.J

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

Sreenivasan R. Vs a Sasikumar

P.Rashida Vs State of Kerala

Saraswathy R., Vs State of Kerala

K. Cheriya Koya Vs U.T.Administration of Lakshadweep

C.R.Shaji, Vs Kerala State Financial Enterprises Ltd.

Mahadevan.T.R Vs Kitco Ltd.