IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR.C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN TUESDAY, THE 25TH OCTOBER 2011 / 3RD KARTHIKA 1933 WA.No. 1564 of 2011() --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.26617/2011 Dated 14/10/2011 .................... APPELLANT/WRIT PETITIONER: -------------- AMRITA RAJU, AGED 46 YEARS, S/O.CHITHRAN, PANAKKALTHARA HOUSE, VENNALA.P.O., KOCHI-682 022. BY ADV. SMT.M.A.VAHEEDA BABU SRI.JAGAN GEORGE SRI.P.G.PRAMOD SRI.ONEAL SABU RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. CORPORATION OF COCHIN, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, OFFICE OF THE COCHIN CORPORATION, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE HEALTH OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE HEALTH OFFICER, CORPORATION OF COCHIN, ERNAKULAM. 3. SIVAPARASAD, AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS, S/O.RAVI, VATTAMTHITTAYIL HOUSE, VENNALA P.O., COCHIN-682 028. 4. RAVI, VATTAMTHITTAYIL HOUSE, VENNALA.P.O., COCHIN-682 028. 5. SURESH.M.M., AGE & FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, HEALTH INSPECTOR, CIRCLE-14, OFFICE OF THE CORPORATION OF COCHIN, ERNAKULAM. ADV. SRI.K.ANAND, SC, COCHIN CORPN. FOR R1-2 ADV. SRI.T.M.ABDUL LATIF FOR R5 THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/10/2011, ALONG WITH WPC NOS.25787 & 26617 OF 2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, Ag. C.J. & P.S.GOPINATHAN, J. .................................................................... Writ Appeal No.1564 of 2011 & W.P.(C) Nos.25787 & 26617 of 2011 .................................................................... Dated this the 25th day of October, 2011. JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair, Ag. C.J. Connected W.P.(C)s. and the Writ Appeal are filed by the very same person who is carrying on a cottage industry making sweet peanut candies in his 4 cents of property for the last 14 years. According to petitioner/appellant, neighbouring owners from whom he purchased the property wants back the property and on his declining to resell the property to them, they have filed bogus complaints alleging pollution. It is seen that the Pollution Control Board has issued prohibitory orders against which one W.P.(C) is filed. The Municipality also has discontinued permission because of the orders issued by the Pollution Control Board. 2. The appellant/petitioner's counsel produced photograph showing the small manufacturing facility which is nothing but two clay ovens with separate chimneys for smoke to escape. According to the W.A. 1564/2011 2 appellant/petitioner, there is no smoke pollution as alleged and so much so, W.P.(C)s. and the Writ Appeal should be allowed permitting him to continue his manufacturing activity. 3. After hearing counsel appearing for all sides including Standing Counsel for the Corporation, Standing Counsel for Pollution Control Board and the contesting respondents, we find that the allegation of pollution is certainly exaggerated because the petitioner/appellant installed two chimneys for escapement of smoke and the clay ovens are so fixed that there is no chance of smoke escaping except through the outlet of the chimney. However, we find force in the suggestion made by the Pollution Control Board that the chimney should have a total height of 10 metres as against 7 metres provided by the petitioner. It is seen from the photographs that atleast 3 metres of the chimney is made of brick probably to absorb the heat from the smoke and beyond that chimney is made of PVC pipe. The petitioner/appellant can extend the length of PVC pipe by another 3 metres making the total height at 10 metres. Further, since there is a complaint by the neighbouring owners, whether it is genuine or not, W.A. 1564/2011 3 that the heating of jaggery, though to limited extent, spreads smell of jaggery in the area, we direct the petitioner/appellant to have a hood system and a chimney for the oven in which the jaggery is heated before mixing with the peanuts. As and when petitioner/appellant completes the above two items of work, the Pollution Control Board will conduct inspection and grant approval based on which there will be direction to the Corporation to issue licence to the petitioner/appellant to continue the business. The Pollution Control Board should inspect the site during processing by the petitioner/appellant and if petitioner is unnecessarily harassed by any authority, petitioner can approach this court again. Since the petitioner/appellant was in operation for the last 14 years without any break, he is allowed to manufacture by using one oven and chimney while work is on for the other chimney and after completion of one chimney, he can switch over and modify the second chimney as well. The petitioner/appellant is granted one month time to complete all work. It is for the petitioner/appellant to provide covering to the manufacturing shed atleast upto roof level so that even sound and smell W.A. 1564/2011 4 will not escape from the building. The Writ Appeal and W.P.(C)s. are allowed as above. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Acting Chief Justice P.S.GOPINATHAN Judge pms