IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR TUESDAY, THE 31ST AUGUST 2010 / 9TH BHADRA 1932 WP(C).No. 941 of 2008(K) ------------------------ PETITIONERS: --------------- 1. AHAMMAD KABEER. S/O.ABOOBAKCER KUNHU, P.V.HOUSE, 10, NEDUMPANA PANCHAYAT, PIN 691 573. 2. HAMSA,S/O. BASHEERKUTTY, POOVAN VILA VEEDU, 9 KUNDUMON, NEDUMPANA PIN 691 573. 3. ABDUL SALIM,S/O. SAINULLABDEEN, CHARUVILA PUTHENVEEDU, 9, KUNDUMON NEDUMPANA PIN 691 573. BY ADV. SRI.P.CHANDRASEKHAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. M/S. ENGLISH INDIAN (EICL) T.C.79/34 VELI, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 021,REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. 2. THE KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, PATTOM PO, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 004, REPRESENTED BY ITS MEMBER SECRETARY. 3. THE KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD REGIONAL OFFICE, PATTOM PO, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 004, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER. 4. THE ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD DISTRICT OFFICE, KOLLAM PIN 691008. 5. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOLLAM,PIN 691 001. 6. NEDUMPANA GRAMA PANCHAYAT, NEDUMPANA PO PIN 691 573, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. ADV. SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR FOR R1 SRI.A.K.JAYASANKAR NAMBIAR FOR R1 SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI FOR R1 SRI.P.BENNY THOMAS FOR R1 SRI.ANIL D. NAIR FOR R1 SRI.M.K.CHANDRA MOHANDAS,SC,POLL.C.BOAR FOR R2-4 GOVT.PLEADER SMT N.SUDHA DEVI FOR R5 SRI.V.V.RAJA FOR R6 SRI.R.RANJITH FOR R6 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 31/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX IN W.P.(C)No.941/08 PETITIONER'S EXTS: EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF ELECTION IDENTITY CARD OF THE 1ST PETITIONER. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF ELECTION IDENTITY CARD OF THE 2ND PETITIONER. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF ELECTION IDENTITY CARD OF THE 3RD PETITIONER. EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF CONSENT GRANTED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PREDECESSOR IN INTEREST OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P5: TRUE COPOY OF REPORT DATED 25.6.05 OF THE DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER OF HEALTH KOLLAM TO THE 5TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P6: TRUE COPY OF REPORT DATED 17.11.05 OF THE DIRECTOR OF MINING GEOLOGY TO THE 5TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P7: TRUE COPY OF CONSENT RENEWAL ORDER DATED 28.9.05 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P8: TRUE COPY OF RENEWAL/EXTENSION TO CONSENT DATED 22.5.05 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P9: TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 2.3.07 OF THE VELICHIKKALA ACTION COMMITTEE TO THE 6TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P10: TRUE COPY OF REPORT DATED 1.6.07.OF THE VILLAGE OFFICER, PALLIMON TO TALUK OFFICE, KOLLAM. EXT.P11: TRUE COPY OF MINUTES OF THE MEETING DATED 11.6.07 PRESIDED OVER BY THE HONOURABLE MINISTER FOR INDUSTRIES. EXT.P12: TRUE COPY OF REPORT OF THE CENTRE FOR EARTH SCIENCE STUDIES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. EXT.P13: TRUE COPY OF PETITION DATED 4.10.07 OF VELICHIKKALA ACTION COUNCIL TO THE 5TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P14: TRUE COPY OF CLOSURE NOTICE DATED 26.10.07 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P15: TRUE COPYOF LETTER DATED 7.12.07 ADDRESSED BY SHRI S FAIZI, ENVIRONMENT EXPERT MEMBER, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY TO THE CHAIRMAN, GROUND WATER AUTHORITY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. EXT.P16: TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 1.11.07 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT. RESPONDENTS' EXTS: EXT.R4(A): TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 26.10.07 OF THE RESPONDENTS. EXT.R4(B): TRUE COPY OF DIRECTION ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 15.1.08. EXT.R4(C): TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 29.1.08 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.R4(D): TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 28.10.08 BASED ON THE LATEST INSPECTION ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT. ANNEXURE.R4(E): TRUE COPY OF CONSENT TO OPERATE TRUE COPY T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR,J. ------------------------------------- W.P.(C)No.941 Of 2008 ----------------------------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 31st DAY OF AUGUST, 2010 JUDGMENT In this Writ Petition, the petitioners who are residents of Vilichikala within Nedumpana Grama Panchayat is aggrieved by the pollution caused by the industry run by the 1st respondent. It is pointed out that quarrying of clay is done by the 1st respondent. 2. Mainly, it is pointed out that the 1st respondent has violated the provisions of Environmental Protection Act, Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution)Act and Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution)Act and respondents 2 to 6 are not taking any effective steps in the matter. 3. Initially, this Court had passed an interim order which was modified as per order dated 17.1.2008 in I.A.No.858/08. It was clarified that they can operate the clay manufacturing unit with the licence of the Panchayat and it was clarified that the order will not stand in the way of the Pollution Control Board taking appropriate decision pursuant to Exhibit P14. 4. Exhibit P14 produced along with the Writ Petition is a provisional notice issued by the Pollution Control Board alleging W.P.(C)No.941/08 -2- various omissions on the part of the 1st respondent. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in spite of passage of time and issuance of fresh directions by the Pollution Control Board, even now the Company has not installed any Effluent Treatment Plant, which is denied by the learned counsel appearing for the Company. 6. The 1st respondent has filed a counter affidavit as well as an additional counter affidavit. Various measures taken by them in compliance with the directions issued by the Pollution Control Board have been detailed in the counter affidavit. 7. The learned Standing Counsel for the Pollution Control Board invited my attention to Exhibits R4(d) and R4(e) proceedings. The counter affidavit filed by the Pollution Control Board shows that the 1st respondent has taken over the business of the Company M/s Wolkem Clay Pvt. Ltd. Initially, consent to operate was issued to the said Company, which was renewed under the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act with validity upto 31.12.2007 and under the Air(Prevention and Control of Pollution)Act with validity upto 31.12.2008. On inspection, it was found that the unit has not complied with the W.P.(C)No.941/08 -3- directions issued by the Pollution Control Board. Exhibit R4(a) notice was issued and later an inspection was conducted on 8.1.2008 and based on the result of the inspection additional control measures were directed as per Exhibit R4(b). It is pointed out that the Unit was again inspected on 25.3.2008 and found that the unit is on the way of complying with the directions of the Pollution Control Board under Exhibit R4(b). For some period, it was under lock out and the inspection conducted on 12.3.2010 shows that unit has complied with most of the conditions directed in Exhibit R4(b), but augmentation of effluent treatment plant including facility for safe storage and recycle of treated effluent, one of the additional control measures suggested is yet to be done. 8. In the additional counter affidavit, it is mentioned that the consent is renewed upto 30.6.2012 and further direction was issued to comply with certain conditions. 9. Evidently, the Pollution Control Board has been conducting various inspections and they have been issuing various directions to the Company to comply with certain conditions. It is not as if the Company has not complied with any W.P.(C)No.941/08 -4- of the conditions. Evidently, the consent to operate is valid upto 30.6.2012. Therefore, what remains is to find out whether the directions issued by the Pollution Control Board have been fully complied with by the Company. Since there is a dispute raised by the petitioner that the directions are not at all being complied with, it is only proper that the Pollution Control Board is directed to conduct an inspection with notice to the petitioner and the Company and find out whether all the directions issued by the Pollution Control Board have been complied with. They can suggest further measures, if any, to ward off the alleged pollution caused by the Unit. The same shall be done within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. 10. The further complaint of the petitioner is regarding the alleged encroachment. It is upto the petitioner to prosecute the same before the statutory authorities concerned. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE. dsn