Disposed

Theresa Jose v. Kerala State Pollution Control Board

Kerala HC8 Jul 2024WP(C)/9850/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Court disposed of two writ petitions challenging the non-renewal of a D&O licence and the issuance of a stop memo by local authorities. The Court directed the petitioner to submit fresh applications for the licence and consent to operate within two weeks, mandated a fresh hearing by authorities within a month, and maintained the status quo.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to file fresh applications for D&O licence and consent to operate within two weeks; authorities disposed of applications afresh within one month after hearing; status quo maintaine

Theresa Jose Vs Kerala State Pollution… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN MONDAY, THE 8^TH DAY OF JULY 2024 / 17TH ASHADHA, 1946 WP(C) NO. 41582 OF 2017

¶2

PETITIONER :-

¶3

THERESA JOSE, W/O AJAY JOSE,
KARUMACHERIL, PROPRIETRIEX,
M/S COCHIN GRANITES, 6/12A, ACHAN
KAVALA,MANJALLOOR VILLAGE, MUVATTUPUZHA.686670.

¶4

BY ADVS.

¶5

SRI.A.BALAGOPALAN
SRI.M.S.IMTHIYAZ AHAMMED
SRI.M.N.MANMADAN
SRI.A.RAJAGOPALAN
SMT.P.SEENA

¶6

RESPONDENTS :-

¶7

1 MANJALLOOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PANCHAYATH OFFICE,VAZHAKKULAM PO, ERNAKULAM.686670.

¶8

2 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM.686673.

¶9

3 CHANDRAN NAIR

¶10

CHANDRA VILAS, MADAKKATHANAM PO,
MUVATTUPUZHA.686670.

¶11

4 A.S SATHYAN ANIKKOTTIL HOUSE, MADAKKATHANAM PO, MUVATTUPUZHA.686670.

¶12

5 C.N RAJESH CHATHANIKKAL HOUSE, MADAKKATHANAM PO, MUVATTUPUZHA.686670.

¶13

6 RAJEEV N.R NADUKAD, MADAKKATHANAM PO, MUVATTUPUZHA.686670.

¶14

7 M.A IRSHAD AYYAPPURACKAL, MADAKKATHANAM PO, MUVATTUPUZHA.686670.

¶15

8 NOUSHAD

¶16

WP(C) NO. 41582 OF 2017 & 9850 OF 2018
2

¶17

PADICKAL PEEDIKA, MADAKKATHANAM PO, MUVATTUPUZHA.686670.

¶18

BY ADVS.
SRI.S.SHANAVAS KHAN
GOVERNMENT PLEADER
SRI.V.M.KURIAN
SRI.MATHEW B. KURIAN
SRI.K.T.THOMAS
SMT. K. B. SONY - GP

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 08.07.2024, ALONG WITH WP(C).9850/2018, THE COURT ON THE
SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

WP(C) NO. 41582 OF 2017 & 9850 OF 2018

¶21

¶22

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT

¶23

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN
MONDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF JULY 2024 / 17TH ASHADHA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 9850 OF 2018

¶24

PETITIONER :-

¶25

THERESA JOSE, W/O.AJAY JOSE,
KARUMACHERIL,PROPRIETRIX,
M/S.COCHIN GRANITES,6/12A,
ACHAN KAVALA,MANJALLOOR VILLAGE,
MUVATTUPUZHA-686670.

¶26

BY ADVS.
SRI.A.BALAGOPALAN
SRI.M.S.IMTHIYAZ AHAMMED
SRI.A.RAJAGOPALAN
SMT.P.SEENA

¶27

RESPONDENTS :-

¶28

1 KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD REGIONAL OFFICE,ERNAKULAM,PIN-682020.

¶29

2THE ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER
KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD,DISTRICT
OFFICE(ERNAKULAM-II),1ST FLOOR,MANNA
RESIDENCY,M.C.ROAD,PERUMBAVOOR.

¶30

3 A.S.SATHYAN ANIKKOTTIL HOUSE,MADAKAKTHANAM.P.O, MUVATTUPUZHA-686670.

¶31

BY ADV SRI. T.NAVEEN SC, KERALA STATE POLLUTION
CONTROL BOARD,

¶32

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 08.07.2024, ALONG WITH WP(C).41582/2017, THE COURT ON
THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶33

WP(C) NO. 41582 OF 2017 & 9850 OF 2018
4

¶34

JUDGMENT [WP(C) Nos.41582/2017, 9850/2018]

¶35

These writ petitions are filed by the petitioner challenging

¶36

the non renewal of D&O licence by the Manjalloor Grama Panchayath (for short, “the panchayat”) as well as the stop memo issued by the Kerala State Pollution Control Board (for short, “the Board”).

¶37

The petitioner is the proprietrix of M/s.Cochin Granites engaged in the trading of marble, granites, ceramic tiles etc as well as cutting, sizing, polishing, edge-grewing of marble and granite slabs. She started the business uninterruptedly from 2009 onwards, and in 2017, when the D&O licence expired, the petitioner approached the panchayath for renewal of the said licence. However, based on the complaint submitted by the party respondents in W.P.(C) No.41582 of 2017 claiming to be the immediate neighbours, a stop memo was issued by the village officer, which was later withdrawn by the said officer after inspection. The petitioner had also obtained a consent to operate the establishment issued by the Board. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted a review petition before the

¶38

WP(C) NO. 41582 OF 2017 & 9850 OF 2018
5

¶39

Revenue Divisional Officer to review the order passed by him leading to the issuance of the stop memo issued by the Village Officer. The Revenue Divisional Officer did not consider the review petition. Therefore, the petitioner had approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.6458 of 2017, wherein this Court directed the Revenue Divisional Officer to complete the entire proceedings, after giving sufficient opportunity of hearing the petitioner; and thereafter, the Revenue Divisional Officer directed the Village Officer to withdraw the stop memo. Thereafter, as per Ext.P9 in W.P.(C) No.41582 of 2017, the petitioner submitted an application for renewal of D&O licence before the panchayath, and as per Ext.P11 in W.P.(C) No.41582 of 2017 issued by the Board, the period was extended up to 30.06.2019. Thereafter, Ext.P12 order in W.P.(C) No.41582 of 2017 was passed by the Secretary of the panchayath, directing the petitioner to stop the operation of the establishment immediately. It is in this context, the petitioner has approached this Court with the above writ petitions.

¶40

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and respective Standing Counsels appearing for the panchayath

¶41

WP(C) NO. 41582 OF 2017 & 9850 OF 2018
6

¶42

and the Board.

¶43

The learned Standing Counsel for the Board submits that the petitioner was running the unit from 2009 onwards and permission from the Board was obtained only in 2017. The learned Standing Counsel for the panchayat submits that the panchayath issued the stop memo to stop the functioning of the unit on the basis of the complaints given by the party respondents.

¶44

The petitioner was running the business from 2009 onwards without any objection or complaint from the party respondents. It is to be noted that, after the filing of the writ petition, respondents 4, 6 and 7 have filed a counter affidavit in WP(C) No.41582 of 2017, contending that there was acute dust and noise pollution. The said counter affidavit was filed in the year 2018. It is relevant to note that the unit is still functioning on the basis of the interim order passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.41582 of 2017 on 21.12.2017 as well as in W.P.(C) No.9850 of 2018 on 21.03.2018. After 2018, this case came up only in the year 2024. After 2018, no further complaints have been admittedly raised by the respondents regarding acute dust and

¶45

WP(C) NO. 41582 OF 2017 & 9850 OF 2018
7

¶46

noise pollution.

¶47

The respective learned Standing Counsel for the panchayath as well as the Board submits that the D & O licence is issued every year; and for running the unit, the petitioner has to submit a fresh application for the issuance of license. The learned Standing Counsel for the Board also submits that the licence was valid only up to 2019 and the petitioner has to file a fresh application for issuance of fresh consent to operate.

¶48

Considering the fact that the petitioner is running the unit on the basis of the interim orders issued by this Court till today, I am of the opinion that this writ petition can be disposed of, with a direction to the petitioner to submit fresh applications for D & O licence as well as consent to operate the establishment.

¶49

Accordingly, these writ petitions are disposed of as follows :-

¶50

(i) The petitioner is directed to file a fresh application before the panchayath as well as the Board for issuance of D&O licence as well as consent to operate, in accordance with law, within a period of two weeks

¶51

WP(C) NO. 41582 OF 2017 & 9850 OF 2018
8

¶52

from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.

¶53

(ii) It is made clear that the petitioner shall comply with all mandatory requirements as directed by the panchayath as well as the Board.

¶54

(iii) The applications, if any, filed by the petitioner, shall be considered by the competent among the respondents afresh, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the applications.

¶55

(iv) Before passing any such order, the competent authority shall afford the petitioner as well as the affected parties if any, an opportunity of being heard.

¶56

(v) Until such orders are passed, status quo shall be maintained. In the event of failure on the part of the petitioner in filing applications as aforesaid, the respondents will be at liberty to proceed against the petitioner, in accordance with law.

Sd/-

SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN

JUDGE

SMA

WP(C) NO. 41582 OF 2017 & 9850 OF 2018
9

¶62

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 9850/2018

¶63

PETITIONER EXHIBITS :-

¶64

EXHIBIT P1TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF SETTING UP
MICRO,SMALL OR MEDIUM ENTERPRISE ISSUED BY
THEMANAGER,DISTRICTINDUSTRIES
CENTRE,ERNAKULAM BEARING NO.B10-10124/09
DATED 14.9.2009
EXHIBIT P2TRUE COPY OF THE D & O LICENSE BEARING
NOI.V2-1912/2017 DATED 25.4.2017 ISSUED BY
THE SECRETARY OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT
PANCHAYATH.
EXHIBIT P3TRUE COPY OF THE CONSENT TO OPERATE
CERTIFICATE BEARING NO. PCB/ EKM/ DO2/ IAO/
67/2017 DATED 3.2.2017 ISSUED BY THE 1ST
RESPONDENT

¶65

EXHIBIT P4TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER BEARING NO.PCB/RO-
EKM/GEN-76/12 DATED 20.5.2017 ISSUED BY THE
CHIEF ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER OF THE 1ST
RESPONDENT

¶66

EXHIBIT P5TRUE COPY OF THE EXPLANATION DATED 7.9.2017
SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO EXHIBIT P4.

¶67

EXHIBIT P6TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.PCB/RO-EKM/COMP-
5/17 DATED 20.10.2017 ISSUED BY THE 1ST
RESPONDENT TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT

¶68

EXHIBIT P7TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT DATED 15.11.2017
SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND
RESPONDENT

¶69

EXHIBIT P8TRUE COPY OF THE CONSENT TO OPERATE
CERTIFICATE NO.PCB/EKM/DO2/IAO/R1/169/2017
DATED 24.11.2017 ISSUED BY THE 1ST
RESPONDENT

¶70

EXHIBIT P9TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER BEARING
NO.PCB/EKM/DO2/IAO/F/67/2017 DATED 8.3.2018
ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶71

WP(C) NO. 41582 OF 2017 & 9850 OF 2018
10

¶72

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 41582/2017

¶73

PETITIONER EXHIBITS :-

¶74

EXHIBIT P1TRUE COPY OF MEMORANDUM OF SETTING UP MICRO
SMALL OR MEDIUM ENTERPRISE ISSUED BY THE
MANAGER,DISTRICTINDUSTRIESCENTRE,
ERNAKULAM BEARING NO.B10-10124/09 DATED
14.9.2009.
EXHIBIT P2TRUE COPY OF THE D & O LICENSE BEARING
NO.V2-1912/2017 DATED 25.4.2017 ISSUED BY
THE SECRETARY OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT
PANCHAYATH.
EXHIBIT P3TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 15.6.2016
SUBMITTED BY RESPONDENTS 3 TO 8.
EXHIBIT P4TRUE COPY OF THE STOP MEMO DATED 8.11.2016
ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, MANJALLOOR
VILLAGE.
EXHIBIT P5RUE COPY OF THE CONSENT TO OPERATE
CERTIFICATE BEARING NO. PCB/ EKM/ DO2/ IAO/
67/2017 DATED 3.2.2017 ISSUED BY THE KERALA
STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD.
EXHIBIT P6TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT PASSED BY THIS
HON'BLE COURT IN WP(C) NO.6458/2017 DATED
15.3.2017.
EXHIBIT P7TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY
THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT
DATED 30.3.2017 WITH THE ENDORSEMENT.

¶75

EXHIBIT P8TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.152/17 DATED
12.5.2017 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
MANJALLOOR VILLAGE.

¶76

`EXHIBIT P9`	`TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR RENEWAL OF`
	`D & 0 LICENSE SUBMITTED TRUE COPY OF THEBY`
	`THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT`
	`DATED 2.12.2016.`

¶77

WP(C) NO. 41582 OF 2017 & 9850 OF 2018
11

¶78

EXHIBIT P10TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE 1ST
RESPONDENT PANCHAYATH EVIDENCING RECEIPT OF
EXHIBIT P9 APPLICATION DATED 2.12.2016.

¶79

EXHIBIT P11TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE SHOWING
INTEGRATED CONSENT TO OPERATE-RENEWAL OF NO.
PCB/ EKM/ DO2/ IAO/ R1/ 169 /2017 DATED
24.11.2017 EXTENDING THE PERIOD UPTO
30.6.2019, ISSUED BY THE POLLUTION CONTROL
BOARD.

¶80

EXHIBIT 12TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER BEARING NO.B2-2959/17
DATED 15.12.2017 ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY OF
THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

Theresa Jose v. Kerala State Pollution Control Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Theresa Jose 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

Babu Lukose Vs the Divisional Manager

Thomas C.M Vs Tajuddeen K

V.P.Abbas Vs the New India Assurance Company Ltd.

Omana Vs the Secretary, Kerala Agricultural Debt Relief Commission

Manju.P Vs the Kerala State Electricity Board

Seena Ratheesh Vs the Kerala Coastal Zone Management Authority, Represented by Its Member Secretary