Disposed

Ravi Rajan P.R, v. Parakkadav Grama Panchayath, Represented by Its Secretary

Kerala HC8 Jul 2024WP(C)/18082/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner aggrieved by non-consideration of pollution complaints preferred before Panchayat and Pollution Control Board. Court directed respondents to consider these complaints within one month after affording opportunity of hearing.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondents 1 & 2 to consider Exts.P2 and P3 complaints within one month after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and 4th respondent.

Ravi Rajan P.R, Vs Parakkadav Grama Panchayath… — Environment and Pollution | Kerala HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.M.MANOJ

¶4

MONDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF JULY 2024 / 17TH ASHADHA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 18082 OF 2024

¶5

PETITIONER/S:

¶6

RAVI RAJAN P.R,
AGED 45 YEARS, S/O. RAJAPPAN,
PANTALAKKAL HOUSE, KURUMASSERY PO,
PARAKKADAV VILLAGE, ALUVA TALUK, PIN – 683 579.

¶7

BY ADVS.

¶8

AJAI JOHN
V.M.SAJAN

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 PARAKKADAV GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MOOZHIKULAM AMBALAMURI ROAD, KURUMASERI, ERNAKULAM, KERALA, PIN – 683 579.

¶11

2 KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, KADAVANTHARA, MIG AND HIG COLONY, GANDHI NAGAR, ELAMKULAM, ERNAKULAM, KERALA, PIN – 682020.

¶12

3** ADDL.R3: ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER, KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, KADAVANTHARA, MIG AND HIG COLONY, GANDHI NAGAR, ELAMKULAM, ERNAKULAM, KERALA 682 020.

¶13

4 ADDL.R4: OUSEP, ALSO KNOWN AS KOCHAPAN, KAITHARATH HOUSE, KURUMASSERY P.O., KURUMASSERY, NEAR LF ACADEMY, ALUVA TALUK, PIN-683 579.

¶14

(**ADDL. R3 & R4 ARE IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED
31.05.2024 IN IA NO.1/2024 IN WP(C))
BY ADVS.
AYPE JOSEPH
MERIN ROSE(K/1091/2022)

¶15

W.P.(C)No.18082 of 2024

¶16

¶17

OTHER PRESENT:

¶18

SRI.ANIL PRABHA K., STANDING COUNSEL, PARAKKADAVU PANCHAYAT

¶19

SRI.T.NAVEEN, STANDING COUNSEL, KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 08.07.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:

¶21

W.P.(C)No.18082 of 2024

¶22

¶23

JUDGMENT

¶24

The writ petition is preferred being aggrieved by the non consideration of Exts.P2 & P3 complaints preferred before the 1^st & 2^nd respondents.

¶25

The petitioner is the owner of a residential building bearing House No.358/20 in a property having an extent of 4.35 Ares situated in Block No.6, Resurvey No.358/20 of Parakkadavu Village, Aluva Taluk.

¶26

It is the case of the petitioner that neighbouring property, comprising 60 cents, located to the east and south of the petitioner’s property is owned by certain Ousep, the additional 4^th respondent. The property owner is accommodated migrant workers illegally in a shed on his roof top. It is also alleged that one shed is constructed in another portion of his property and the same is used as pig farm. As a result, the petitioner finds difficulty to survive in his own property due to the pollution occurred thereby. The drinking water sources is also contaminated. In order

¶27

W.P.(C)No.18082 of 2024

¶28

¶29

to establish that, petitioner produced the Lab Test Report as per Ext.P1. It is further contended that despite repeated requests, the owner of the neighbouring property failed to take necessary measures to prevent pollution. Under such circumstances, petitioner preferred Ext.P2 complaint before the 1^st respondent Panchayat, and Ext.P3 complaint before the 2^nd respondent, Pollution Control Board.

¶30

During pendency of this writ petition, by order dated 31.05.2024 in I.A. No.1 of 2024, the additional respondent Nos.3 & 4 were impleaded.

¶31

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel for respondents 2 &3 and the learned counsel for the party respondent. There is no representation for the Panchayat.

¶32

The limited prayer in the writ petition is to consider and pass orders on Exts.P2 & P3 complaints preferred by the petitioner before the 1^st & 2^nd respondents.

¶33

Considering the limited nature of prayer sought for and also considering that the respondents are not

¶34

W.P.(C)No.18082 of 2024

¶35

¶36

objected the consideration of Exts.P2 & P3 complaints, I deem it appropriate to direct the respondents 1 & 2 to consider Exts.P2 & P3 complaints preferred by the petitioner, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Needless to say, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as the 4^th respondent.

¶37

The writ petition is disposed accordingly.

¶38

Sd/-

¶39

P.M. MANOJ, JUDGE

¶40

S.M.K.

¶41

W.P.(C)No.18082 of 2024

¶42

¶43

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 18082/2024

¶44

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶45

Exhibit P1TRUE COPY OF THE LAB TEST REPORT DATED
17/11/2023 OF WELL OF THE PETITIONER ISSUED
BY REGIONAL ANALYTICAL LABORATORY.

¶46

Exhibit P2TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 16/04/2024
SUBMITTED TO RESPONDENT NO. 1
Exhibit P3TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 16/04/2024
SUBMITTED TO RESPONDENT NO. 2

Ravi Rajan P.R, v. Parakkadav Grama Panchayath, Represented by Its Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ravi Rajan P.R, v. Parakkadav Grama Panchayath, Represented by Its Secretary

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

K.K Sreenivasan Vs Director of Public Instructions

Sooraj. M Vs the State of Kerala

Lasitha. K. Vs the Authorized Officer

Dominic K. Felix Vs State of Kerala

Alavi Haji Vs Revenue Divisional Officer

Unnikrishnan K.V Vs State of Kerala