IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH JUNE 2010 / 19TH JYAISTHA 1932 WP(C).No. 11140 of 2010(N) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- THE HONEST VANITHA WELFARE SOCIETY, REGISTERED UNDER ACT 12 OF 1955, REG.NO.R6 44/2005, P.O.MANAKKODI, THRISSUR-680 017, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY, LEENA ANTONY, MANAKKODI, THRISSUR TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.DINESH R.SHENOY RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE ARIMBOOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH, ARIMBOOR.P.O, THRISSUR TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD REGIONAL OFFICE, ERNAKULAM, REP.BY THE CHIEF ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER. 3. JOJO P.V., PUTHUKKADAN HOUSE, MANAKKODI, THRISSUR-680 017. 4. VINOD T., KANDEKKAVIL HOUSE, MANAKKODI, THRISSUR-680 017. 5. JOBY JOHN, PAVARATTIKKARAN HOUSE, MANAKKODI, THRISSUR-680 017. ADV. SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN FOR R1 ADV.SHRI M.K.CHANDRAMOHAN DAS FOR R2 (SC -PCB) ADV.SHRI C.S.MANILAL FOR R3 TO R5 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX IN W.P.(C)No.11140/10 PETIITONER'S EXTS: EXT.P1: TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER SOCIETY BY THE REGISTRAR OR SOCIETIES, THRISSUR. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE LICENCE BEARING NO.82/05-06 DATED 15.12.05 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 24.9.08 FILED BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 13.8.08 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 30.8.08 ISSSUED BY THE HEALTH INSPECTOR, PRIMARY HEALTH CENTRE, ARIMBOOR. EXT.P6: TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 9.9.08 ISSUED BY P.V.CHAKKAPPAN ON BEHALF OF THE PETIITONER. EXT.P7: TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 29.9.08 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P8: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 6.1.09 IN W.P.(C)No.29452/08 OF THIS COURT. EXT.P9: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 20.2.09 IN W.P.(C)No. 29452/08 OF THIS COURT. EXT.P10: TRUE COPY OF THE CONSENT TO OPERATE DATED 28.10.08 ISSUED BY THE KERALA POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P11: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 24.1.09 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P12: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 17.9.09 IN W.P.(C)No. 29452/08 OF THIS COURT. EXT.P13: TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 3.2.10 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P14: TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 3.2.10 ISSUED TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P15: TRUE COPY OF NOTICE DATED 5.2.10 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P16: TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 8.2.10 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P17: TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 23.2.10 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. WP(C).No. 11140 of 2010(N) 3 EXT.P18: TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 4.3.10 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P19: TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 10.3.10 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P20: TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT DATED 25.3.10 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P21: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 25.3.10 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P22: TRUE COPY OF COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BY RESPONDENTS 3 TO 5 BEFORE THE HON'BLE OMBUDSMAN FOR LOCAL SELF GOVT.INSTITUTIONS. EXT.P23: TRUE COPY OF OBJECTION DATED 15.3.10 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P24: TRUE COPY OF REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT BEFORE THE HON'BLE OMBUDSMAN FOR LOCAL SELF GOVT.INSTITUTIONS, DATED 23.1.10. EXT.P25: TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 15.3.10 ISSUED BY THE HON'BLE OMBUDSMAN FOR LOCAL SELF GOVT.INSTITUTIONS EXT.P26: TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 21.4.10 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P27: TRUE COPY OF REPORT DATED 16.4.10 FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT BEFORE THE HON'BLE OMBUDSMAN FOR LOCAL SELF GOVT.INSTITUTIONS. EXT.P28: TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 31.5.10 WITH SKETCH, SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. RESPONDENTS' EXTS: EXT.R3(A): TRUE COPY OF COMPLAINT AS WELL AS THE REPORT ON COMPLAINT BY THE SECRETARY OF THE GRAMA PANCHAYAT. EXT.R3(B): TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER DATED 17.11.08. EXT.R3(C): TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 24.1.09 ISSUED BY THE ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER. EXT.R3(D) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THIS COURT DATED 20.2.09 IN W.P.(C) No. 29452/08 EXT.R3(E): TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 3.2.10. WP(C).No. 11140 of 2010(N) 4 EXT.R3(F): TRUE COPY OF THE RESULT OF ANALYSIS DATED 8.10.09. EXT.R3(G): TRUE COPY OF RESULT OF ANALYSIS DATED 9.12.09. EXT.R3(H): TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 23.1.10 OF THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER. EXT.R3(I): TRUE COPY OF THE VARIATION OF THE CONSENT ORDER OF POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD. EXT.R3(J): TRIE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS TAKEN IN NIGHT. EXT.R3(K): TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING THE MACHINES IN MARIYA FOOD INDUSTRIES. EXT.R3(L): TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING DAY AND NIGHT WORKING. TRUE COPY T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR,J. ------------------------------------- W.P.(C)No.11140 of 2010 --------------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 9th DAY OF JUNE, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner is challenging Exhibit P25 order passed by the Ombudsman in a complaint filed by the contesting respondents herein. As per the above order, the Ombudsman has directed the Environmental Engineer of the Pollution Control Board to conduct an inspection and to issue consent to operate only if all the directions issued are complied with. 2. The respondents have filed a counter affidavit. Along with I.A.No.7426/10, which is an application for amendment of the Writ Petition, the petitioner has produced Exhibit P28, an application submitted before the Pollution Control Board requesting for permission to change the manufacturing process. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Pollution Control Board may be directed to consider the said application. 3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for respondents 3, 4 and 5 and the learned Standing Counsel for the Pollution Control Board. The learned Standing Counsel for the Pollution W.P.(C)No.11140/10 -2- Control Board submitted that inspection as directed by the learned Ombudsman has already been conducted and a report has already been submitted before the learned Ombudsman, a copy of which is available as Exhibit P27. 4. The learned counsel for the contesting respondents submitted that since the complaint and other matters are pending before the learned Ombudsman, it is only proper that the petitioner submits all aspects before the learned Ombudsman for appropriate orders. It is pointed out that since the final order is yet to be passed, ultimately, it is for the learned Ombudsman to take a decision in the matter. 5. What is sought for in Exhibit P28 is a permission for a different manufacturing process, i.e., from the production of instant idiyapppam to powdering silky rice -roasting and packing. Of course, the Pollution Control Board may have to consider this application. But the complaints regarding the pollution emanating from the Unit is still pending before the learned Ombudsman and the learned Ombudsman has already directed the Pollution Control Board to address the question and file a report. The parties agree that final orders are expected to be W.P.(C)No.11140/10 -3- passed by the learned Ombudsman and the matter is posted to 14.6.2010. Therefore, it is upto the petitioner to apprise the learned Ombudsman about the new application submitted, viz; Exhibit P28 and the variations required in the manufacturing process. On submitting the said application, the Pollution Control Board can also file the response to Exhibit P28 before the learned learned Ombudsman and thereafter appropriate orders can be sought for by the petitioner as well as the party respondents herein from the Ombudsman in the matter. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE. dsn