Dismissed

Ignatious K.J. v. K.J. Joseph

NGT8 Jul 2025Appeal No. 59/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This appeal challenges an order by the Air Appellate Authority allowing a bakery unit to manufacture 300 snacks daily despite disputes over smoke and odour. The Tribunal held that odour from baking is not a toxic contaminant, the appellant was estopped after conceding compliance with consent terms, and operations permitted under a valid Consent to Operate shall continue, though nuisance must be av

What did the court decide?

Appeal against the Air Appellate Authority's order allowing 300 snacks production is dismissed; bakery operations continue.

Ignatious K.J. vs K.J. Joseph — Consumer Protection | NGT (2025)

¶1

Item No.03:-

¶2

BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL SOUTHERN ZONE, CHENNAI

¶3

Tuesday, the 08^th day of July, 2025

¶4

[Through Physical Hearing (Hybrid Option)]

¶5

Appeal No.59 of 2024 (SZ) & I.A. Nos.128 & 129 of 2024 (SZ)

¶6

IN THE MATTER OF

¶7

Ignatious K.J.

¶8

Aged 58 years,
S/o. K.L. John,
Kollamparambil House,
22/216, Mundamveli P.O.,
Kochi – 682 507.
…Appellant (s)
Versus
1) K.J. Joseph
Aged 50 years,
S/o. Late K.M. Jacob,
Residing at Konnoth House,
Mundamveli P.O.,
Kochi – 682 507.
2) The Environmental Engineer
Kerala State Pollution Control Board,
District Office,
1, Ernakulam, Gandhi Nagar,
Kochi – 682 020.
...Respondent(s)

¶9

For Appellant (s): Mr. P.B. Sahasranaman, Mr. S. Sai Sathya Jith and Md. Arshadullah Sheriff. For Respondent(s): M/s. S. Sujin & Sajen Thampan for R1. Mrs. V.K. Rema Smrithi for R2.

¶10

Judgment Reserved on: 01^st July, 2025.

¶11

CORAM :

¶12

HON’BLE Smt. JUSTICE PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA, JUDICIAL MEMBER

¶13

HON’BLE Dr. SATYAGOPAL KORLAPATI, EXPERT MEMBER

¶14

Page 1 of 7

¶15

J U D G E M E N T

¶16

Delivered by Smt. Justice Pushpa Sathyanarayana, Judicial Member

¶17

1. The above appeal is directed against the order passed by the Air Appellate Authority, Thiruvananthapuram, in Appeal No.11 of 2022, dated 20.04.2024.

¶18

2. Respondent No.1 is a proprietor of the bakery named “St. Marys Bakery” at Mundamveli, Kochi, which has been functioning since 2010. Respondent No. 1 holds all the required statutory licenses and permissions for operating the bakery unit, including a food production license under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, and a trade license, among others.

¶19

3. The Appellant herein is residing adjacent to the residential building owned by Respondent No.1 in Sy. No.279/2 of Rameswaram Village, Kochi Taluk, Ernakulam District. The operation of Respondent No.1’s bakery next to the Appellant’s residence, creates smoke and unpleasant odours that interfere with the daily life of the nearby residents.

¶20

4. Respondent No.2, which is the Kerala State Pollution Control Board ( KSPCB ), had issued a temporary Consent to Operate to manufacture 300 No. of snacks per day on compliance with certain conditions. Later, the validity of the consent was extended till 30.11.2025 on compliance with the conditions.

¶21

5. It is further alleged that during the operation of the 1st Respondent’s bakery unit, the emission of smoke and foul odour caused inconvenience to the nearby residents. It is stated that despite being directed not to bake cakes, Respondent No.1 continues to manufacture cakes, bread and other items, generating excessive smoke and odour causing severe air pollution.

¶22

6. Respondent No.2 ( KSPCB ) caused an inspection on 10.02.2022 and confirmed discomforting smells, emanating from the bakery and issued a show cause notice on 18.02.2022. As the 1^st Respondent did not comply with the order to stop

¶23

Page 2 of 7

¶24

manufacturing the cakes, a stop memo was issued on 03.01.2022, directing the 1^st Respondent to stop manufacturing cakes. The KSPCB also issued a notice to cancel the Consent to Operate granted on 04.04.2022. After hearing the explanation offered by the 1^st Respondent, the KSPCB cancelled the consent granted to manufacture 300 No. of snacks on 25.04.2022.

¶25

7. Challenging the cancellation of consent, the 1^st Respondent herein filed an appeal before the Air Appellate Authority, Thiruvananthapuram, as Appeal No.11 of 2022 , which was allowed by the Air Appellate Authority. Hence, the same is now under challenge before this Tribunal in this appeal.

¶26

8. The learned counsel appearing for the Appellant would argue that because of the bakery unit, the smoke that comes from the oven is interfering with their daily life and that the said activity should be stopped. Earlier, the 1^st Respondent herein had filed a writ petition [W.P. (C) No.14928 of 2022] before the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala, challenging the order dated 25.04.2022 passed by the KSPCB. Vide Order dated 29.04.2022, the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala had disposed of the writ petition, directing the writ petitioner therein/1^st Respondent herein to file an appeal before the Appellate Authority. According to the Appellant, it is admitted that the bakery unit has been in operation since 2010 and has all the required statutory licenses.

¶27

9. Since the baking unit of the 1^st Respondent herein is under the ‘Green’ Category, the Consent to Operate was not necessary. Since there were complaints made by some neighbouring people, alleging a smell emanating from the production of cakes, which was causing disturbance to them, the 1^st Respondent herein applied for the consent. The 1^st Respondent has also complied with all the conditions mentioned in the consent order.

¶28

10. The Air Appellate Authority, Thiruvananthapuram, allowed the appeal [Appeal No.11 of 2022] vide Order dated 20.04.2024, permitting the 1^st Respondent to manufacture 300 No. of snacks in the bakery unit, including cakes with a direction to the KSPCB to ensure that the 1^st Respondent’s bakery unit is

¶29

Page 3 of 7

¶30

running strictly as per the conditions contained in the Consent to Operate.

¶31

11. So, the only question that has to be considered is:

¶32

Whether the impugned order passed by the Air Appellate Authority, Thiruvananthapuram, dated 20.04.2024 in Appeal No.11 of 2022 is sustainable?

¶33

12. In the impugned order dated 20.04.2024, it is stated that the KSPCB had made surprise inspections on 15.12.2021 and 18.12.2021. On the basis of the spot inspections, directions were issued to the 1^st Respondent to stop the production of bread and cake in the unit, functioning of the unit during the night. The 1^st Respondent has stated that he was using an electric oven for the production of bakery items and there is no scope for air pollution, as he has been complying with the norms prescribed by the CPCB and the KSPCB.

¶34

13. The learned counsel appearing for the 1^st Respondent categorically stated that the allegation of air pollution has no basis, as the measures to prevent air pollution, as suggested by the KSPCB, are installed in the baking unit and there is a standard fixed with respect to the discharge of air pollutants by the bakery unit.

¶35

14. It is argued that the smell emanating from frying, baking, etc. is not considered as air pollution. The stop memo issued by the KSPCB without considering the above facts was challenged by the 1^st Respondent. It is to be noted that the 1^st Respondent’s bakery unit was issued with a Consent to Operate for running the bakery. As per the said consent, the 1^st Respondent was permitted to manufacture 300 No. of sacks using raw materials containing 40 kg of Maida, 10 kg of gram flour, 5 kg of vegetables and 25 kg of sugar.

¶36

15. While allowing the appeal, the Air Appellate Authority, Thiruvananthapuram, has recorded that the 1^st Respondent herein/Appellant therein was satisfied with the consent for manufacturing 300 No. of snacks with the raw materials

¶37

Page 4 of 7

¶38

mentioned therein and the Appellant herein/2^nd Respondent therein cannot dictate terms as to what kind of snacks the 1^st Respondent has to manufacture with the raw materials allowed to be used by the KSPCB.

¶39

16. It is argued that if the 1^st Respondent is able to manufacture cake with the said raw materials, as specified in the Consent to Operate, the Appellant herein cannot stop the bakery from manufacturing the prescribed number of snacks as per the Consent to Operate issued by the KSPCB.

¶40

17. The Appellant herein/2^nd Respondent therein in the appeal before the Air Appellate Authority has conceded that he has no objection to manufacturing the prescribed number of snacks with the prescribed quantity of raw materials allowed as per the Consent to Operate. If the 1^st Respondent herein is able to manufacture cake with the prescribed raw materials, the Appellant herein has no objection in manufacturing cake with the permitted raw materials allowed in the Consent to Operate. The KSPCB also had agreed to ensure that the bakery unit of the 1^st Respondent is run strictly as per the conditions contained in the Consent to Operate.

¶41

18. Having recorded the undertaking and the concession made by the appellant herein, the appeal was allowed by the Air Appellate Authority, Thiruvananthapuram.

¶42

19. Admittedly, the Consent to Operate was issued on 30.03.2021 and is valid till 30.11.2025. The raw materials to be used and the number of snacks to be produced are also mentioned in the consent order. The trade effluent is also be disposed of through the soak pit. The condition as per the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981, is that adequate air pollution control measures shall be operational at all times during the functioning of the unit. Additional facilities required, if any, to achieve the standards laid down by the KSPCB should also be made along with that. The consent order also prescribes specific conditions regarding the sound level measured 1-meter outside the boundary and all operations likely to produce dust or noise or

¶43

Page 5 of 7

¶44

smell shall be carried out within sufficiently closed and insulated premises.

¶45

20. Though the 1^st Respondent has contended that the bakery unit falls under the ‘Green’ category, the Appellant asserts that it should be classified under the ‘Orange’ category. Nevertheless, the 1^st Respondent has obtained a valid Consent to Operate from the KSPCB, which remains in force until 30.11.2025.

¶46

21. During the course of the argument, the learned counsel appearing for the KSPCB invited our attention to a circular issued by the KSPCB dated 14.05.2025 , which deals with the ‘Clarification on categorization of sectors under Red, Orange, Green, White and Blue Categories’ . Some of the major changes are made in the categorization, as per which, the ‘Bakery, Confectionery, sweets with production capacity of more than or equal to 1 TPD’ alone has been categorized by the CPCB. Those units (Bakery, Confectionery, Sweets) having production capacity of less than 1 TPD is exempted from the consent purview.

¶47

22. From the above, it is evident that once the Consent to Operate expires, it would not be necessary for the 1^st Respondent to apply for a consent at all, as the 1^st Respondent/Proponent produces 300 Nos. of snacks as per the Consent to Operate issued by the KSPCB, which is less than 1 TPD.

¶48

23. Apparently, upon expiry of the existing Consent to Operate, the 1^st Respondent would not be required to obtain a fresh consent, as the unit manufactures only 300 snacks per day, which amounts to less than 1 TPD.

¶49

24. It is also stated that Original Suit No.38 of 2021 on the file of the Principal Munsif Court, Kochi, was preferred by the Appellant herein as plaintiff along with other plaintiffs against the 1^st Respondent herein and others, seeking a relief of permanent prohibitory injunction on the ground that it was causing public nuisance. However, the suit was dismissed on 16.12.2023.

¶50

25. A writ petition [ W.P. (C) No. 35341 of 2023 ], challenging I.A. No. 39 of 2022 in Appeal No. 11 of 2022—whereby the 1^st Respondent was permitted to bake cakes (300 Nos.) for the

¶51

Page 6 of 7

¶52

Christmas season of 2023 for a limited duration—was also dismissed by the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala on 23.11.2023. The Hon’ble High Court of Kerala has observed that the smell generated mainly from frying, baking, etc. is not declared as a toxic contaminant in any of the studies and nor does it have any standards. The bakery unit also had strictly implemented the pollution control measures which have reduced the pollution problems and further additional control measures to control the smell and air pollution issues generated while manufacturing bakery products, which included scrubbing systems for controlling the existing smell and air pollution problems have already been implemented.

¶53

26. In light of the observations made by the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala and the Original Suit [ O.S. No.38 of 2021 ], which was dismissed in favour of the 1^st Respondent and the recent circular of the KSPCB dated 14.05.2025, the odour pollution alleged by the Appellant herein is not established. Having conceded before the Air Appellate Authority, Thiruvananthapuram that the appellant will not have any objection in manufacturing the prescribed number of snacks with the prescribed quantity of raw materials allowed as per the Consent to Operate, the Appellant herein is estopped from raising any objection to the operation of the 1^st Respondent’s bakery unit. However, the 1^st Respondentbakery unit is directed to ensure that there is no air or any other pollution in the area, causing any kind of nuisance to the neighbours.

¶54

27. In view of the above, the appeal [Appeal No.59 of 2024 (SZ)] is dismissed.

¶55

28. The pending interlocutory applications [I.A. Nos.128 & 129 of 2024 (SZ)] stand closed.

¶56

Sd/-

¶57

Smt. Justice Pushpa Sathyanarayana, JM

¶58

Sd/-

¶59

Dr. Satyagopal Korlapati, EM

¶60

Internet – Yes/No All India NGT Reporter – Yes/No

¶61

Appeal No.59/2024 (SZ) & I.A. Nos.128 & 129/2024 (SZ) 08^th July, 2025. Mn.

¶62

Page 7 of 7

Ignatious K.J. v. K.J. Joseph

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ignatious K.J. v. K.J. Joseph

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ms Shams Leather Finishers through Its Proprietor vs Uttar Pradesh Pollution Control Board

Atish P Mandrekar vs Goa State Pollution Control Board

Paras Enterprises vs Gujarat Pollution Control Board

M R Engineering Co. vs Mpcb Regional Office

S Madhu vs Seiaa Tamilnadu

Nakul Kumar Gupta vs Uttarakhand Pollution Control Board

Nakul Kumar Gupta vs Uttarakhand Pollution Control Board

Nakul Kumar Gupta vs Uttarakhand Forest

D Rajavardhan Reddy and P Kishore vs the State of Andhra Pradesh Rep by Its Principal Secretary Revenue Department

A Sundaram vs Seiaa

P Balasubramanian vs Seiaa

Gareeb Guide Ngo vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Gareeb Guide Ngo vs State of Andhra Pradesh

News Item Titled Illegal Encroachment of Forest Land Appearing in the Eenadu Chennai Edition Dated 29 01 2025 vs Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change through Its Regional Office Rep by Its Regional Director