Disposed

A.K.Ashraf v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC7 Jun 2024WP(C)/5132/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Resident complained of nuisance caused by industrial units run by respondents 10 to 13 in a Mini Industrial Area; complaint to the Municipality went unaddressed. Court relegated the petitioner to the Municipality and directed it to decide the complaint within a month after hearing all affected parties.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner permitted to file fresh representation within two weeks; Municipality directed to decide Ext.P1/fresh representation within one month with opportunity of hearing.

A.K.Ashraf Vs the State of Kerala — Environment and Pollution | Kerala HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE EASWARAN S.

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF JUNE 2024 / 17TH JYAISHTA, 1946

¶5

WP(C) NO. 5132 OF 2018

¶6

PETITIONER/S:

¶7

A.K.ASHRAF AGED 45 YEARS
S/O. A.K KOCHUMUHAMMED, APPISSERIYIL HOUSE,
NADACKAL P.O, ERATTUPETTA - 686 121.

¶8

BY ADVS. SRI.SANTHOSH G. PRABHU
SMT.A.ASWATHY
SRI.K.JANARDHANA SHENOY

¶9

RESPONDENT/S:

¶10

1 THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

¶11

2 DISTRICT COLLECTOR CIVIL STATION, KOTTAYAM-686001.

¶12

3 REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER PALA-686574.

¶13

4 GENERAL MANAGER DISTRICT INDUSTRIAL CENTRE, DIRECTORATE OF INDUSTRIES & COMMERCE, NAGAMPADAM, KOTTAYAM - 686 002.

¶14

5 THE KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD PATTAM P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 004, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶15

6 THE ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, DISTRICT OFFICE,SREENIVASA IYER ROAD, KOTTAYAM - 686001.

¶16

7 ERATTUPETTA MUNICIPALITY ERATTUPETTA, KOTTAYAM - 686 171, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶17

8 THE SECRETARY ERATTUPETTA MUNICIPALITY, ERATTUPETTA, KOTTAYAM - 686 171.

¶18

W.P.(C) No.5132 of 2017 2

¶19

9 HEALTH INSPECTOR HEALTH CENTRE, ERATTUPETTA MUNICIPALITY, ERATTUPETTA.

¶20

10 NASSAR KUNNAPALLY BUILDING NO.315, EXCELL GLASS, MINI INDUSTRIAL AREA,NADACKAL P.O, ERATTUPETTA - 686 121.

¶21

11 ASHIQ ALIYAR BUILDING NO.316, NALCO PIPES, MINI INDUSTRIAL AREA,NADACKAL P.O, ERATTUPETTA - 686 121.

¶22

12 KARIM VATTAKAYAM BUILDING NO.317, MINI INDUSTRIAL AREA, NADACKAL P.O, ERATTUPETTA - 686 121.

¶23

13 Mrs.LEKHA BABU LEKHA SUNIL, BUILDING NO.318, SAW MILL, MINI INDUSTRIAL AREA, NADACKAL P.O, ERATTUPETTA - 686 121.

¶24

BY ADVS. SRI.V.K.PEERMOHAMED KHAN
SHRI.GEORGEKUTTY MATHEW, SC, ERATTUPETTA MUNICIPALITY
SHRI.V.K.MOHAMMED YOUSEF, SC, ERATTUPETTA MUNICIPALITY
SRI.H.SUNIL

¶25

SRI.VINOD KUMAR.C
SHRI.SUNIL V.MOHAMMED, SC, ERATTUPETTA MUNICIPALITY

¶26

SMT. PREETHA. K. K, SR. G. P

¶27

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 07.06.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶28

W.P.(C) No.5132 of 2017

¶29

¶30

EASWARAN S. , J.

¶31

W.P.(C) No.5132 of 2018

¶32

Dated this the 7^th day of June 2024

¶33

JUDGMENT

¶34

The petitioner, who is residing at the Mini Industrial Area coming under the control of the 4^th respondent, District Industrial Centre, Kottayam, is aggrieved by the running of the industrial units by respondents 10 to 13. Raising his grievances, the petitioner filed Ext.P1 complaint dated 9.6.2017 before the 9^th respondent, who is the Health Inspector attached to the 7^th respondent Municipality. It is alleged that, so far, no action has been taken on the said complaint. Accordingly, the writ petition is filed, seeking the following reliefs:

¶35

“ i. Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus

¶36

directing the respondents 4 & 8 to take immediate and effective action against the industrial units of the respondents 10 to 13 as

¶37

W.P.(C) No.5132 of 2017 4

¶38

directed in Ext.P2 and P3 by the 6^th respondent issued pursuant to Ext.P1 within a time frame fixed by this Hon’ble Court “

¶39

Sri. Sunil V. Muhammed, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Municipality, submitted that no decision is taken on the said complaint.

¶40

On the other hand, Sri. V.K. Peermohamed Khan, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents 10 to 12 submitted that his clients are running the industrial units with appropriate license obtained from the Municipality as well as from the Pollution Control Board.

¶41

Considering the nature of the relief sought for in the writ petition and Ext.P1, and since the writ petition is pending from 2018 onwards, this Court deem it appropriate to relegate the petitioner back to the 7^th respondent, Municipality to take appropriate action on Ext.P1 or such other representation he may file pointing out the present obstructions or nuisance caused by the running of the industry run by respondents 10 to 13. In such event, the 7^th respondent or the competent officer

¶42

W.P.(C) No.5132 of 2017 5

¶43

of the 7^th respondent will take up the said representation and hear the petitioners as well as respondents 10 to 13 and take appropriate decision in this regard.

¶44

In view of the above, the following directions are issued:

¶45

1.The petitioner shall be permitted to file additional representation/statement within a period of two weeks from today.

¶46

Appropriate decision shall be taken by the 7^th respondent on Ext.P1 complaint within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, or, in the case of filing fresh representation, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of such representation.

¶47

Before taking a decision, an opportunity of hearing shall be afforded to the petitioner as well as other affected parties.

¶48

W.P.(C) No.5132 of 2017 6

¶49

The 7^th respondent is also directed to issue notice to such other units also against which the petitioner has got a grievance.

¶50

Writ petition is disposed of.

¶51

Sd/-

¶52

EASWARAN S., JUDGE

¶53

¶54

W.P.(C) No.5132 of 2017 7

¶55

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 5132/2018

¶56

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶57

EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 09/06/2017 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 9TH RESPONDENT

¶58

EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO. PCB/KTM/COMP/G/54/2011 DATED 01/07/2017 ISSUED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT.

¶59

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO. PCB/KTM/COMP/G/54/2011 DATED 01/07/2017 ISSUED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT TO THE 8TH RESPONDENT.

A.K.Ashraf v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.K.Ashraf v. the State of Kerala

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

Rajana v.T., Vs State of Kerala

Mr. Surendran Nair.P.v Vs the Assistant General Manager Syndicate Bank Amended as Canara Bank

Rajan. G. Pinayuvila Vs the Deputy Accountant General (a&Rs)

M.I.Mathew @ Mathu Vs Geologist

V.S.Sobha Vs State of Kerala

Arafath Vattaparambath Vs the Local Level Monitoring Committee