IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 18TH JANUARY 2010 / 28TH POUSHA 1931 WP(C).No. 29949 of 2009(K) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. SRI.SUMARAJAN, AGED 49 YEARS, S/O.CHOLAYIL KUMARAN, THEKKEPURAM, P.O.CHITTANJUR, ANJUR VILLAGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 2. SRI.GOPI, AGED 70 YEARS, S/O.MOOTHATTU KUNJAN, THEKKEPURAM, P.O.KUNNAMKULAM, KUNNAMKULAM VILLAGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.R.VENUGOPAL SMT.DHANYA P.ASHOKAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE KUNNAMKULAM MUNICIPALITY, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, KUNNAMKULAM, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN-680 503,. 2. THE KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, DISTRICT OFFICE, THRISSUR, REP. BY THE ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER, P.O.POONKUNNAM, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN-680002. 3. M/S.SUPER ICE, REP. BY ITS PROPRIETOR MRS.SYAMALA, W/O.RAVI, KANDAMPULLY HOUSE, THEKKEPURAM, P.O.CHITTANJUR, ANJUR VILLAGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.P.RAMACHANDRAN FOR R3 SRI.GRASHIOUS KURIAKOSE FOR R1 MR.M.K.CHANDRAMOHAN DAS, SC FOR PCB THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) No.29949 of 2009 (K) --------------------------------- Dated, this the 18th day of January, 2010 J U D G M E N T The 3rd respondent has established an ice and ice cream manufacturing unit in building No.AP IX/542 B of the 1st respondent Municipality. According to the petitioners', without obtaining any licence from the respondent Municipality or consent from the 2nd respondent, the aforesaid manufacturing facility has been established. It is stated that in the process of manufacturing, polluted water is discharged to their premises and that because of the use of a compressor, sound pollution is also caused. 2. The petitioners submit that they made Exts.P1 & P2 complaints to the 1st respondent Municipality. But however, there were no response. It is stated that thereafter they moved the 1st respondent Municipality invoking the provisions of the Right to Information Act seeking disclosure of the action initiated by the Municipality, and that they came to know from Ext.P4 that the Municipality found substance in the allegations raised by them and WP(C) No.29949/2009 -2- that appropriate directions were issued to the 3rd respondent. It is stated that thereafter they also complained to the 2nd respondent, which also had issued instructions to the 3rd respondent and the Municipality. Even thereafter, no further action was initiated and therefore, the writ petition is filed. 3. The learned counsel for the 3rd respondent submits that the establishment is functioning since 2000. It is stated that they have already obtained Ext.R3(a) licence from the 1st respondent Municipality and has also submitted Ext.R3(c) application before the 2nd respondent for consent. It is stated that Ext.R3(c) was submitted as early as on 19/10/2009, and that orders thereon have not been passed by the 2nd respondent. It is submitted that they are willing to abide by any instructions issued by the Pollution Control Board. The learned standing counsel for the 2nd respondent submits that they had inspected the premises and had also issued a show cause notice to the 3rd respondent. 4. Irrespective of whether pollution is caused or not, fact remains that despite the requirement of having consent issued by the 2nd respondent, as on date, the 3rd respondent does not possess such consent. Technically, the establishment cannot run without WP(C) No.29949/2009 -3- the consent. However, from the facts as noticed above, and the submissions made by the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent, it is clear that an application made by the 3rd respondent for consent as early as on 19/10/2009 is still pending. 5. Having regard to the pendency of the application and the fact that the 3rd respondent establishment has been functioning since 2000, I am inclined to direct the 2nd respondent to pass final orders on Ext.R3(c) on an expeditious basis, rather than ordering closure of the establishment itself. 6. Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of with the following directions. That the 2nd respondent shall pass final orders on Ext.R3(c) application for consent, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within four weeks of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Continued operation of the Unit will depend upon the orders to be passed by the Pollution Control Board. The petitioner may produce a copy of this judgment before the 2nd respondent for compliance. This writ petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg