IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE FRIDAY, THE 11TH APRIL 2008 / 22ND CHAITHRA 1930 WP(C).No. 13031 of 2008(B) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ 1. VIJAYAN, AGED 49, S/O.BHASKARAN, VALLOPPALLIYIL HOUSE, KOODALLOOR P.O., VAYALA (VIA), KOTTAYAM DIST. 2. ANTONY, AGED 47, S/O.MARKOSE, VADAKKEKARA HOUSE, KOODALLOOR P.O., VAYALA (VIA), KOTTAYAM DIST. BY ADV. SRI.S.SREEKUMAR SRI.P.MARTIN JOSE RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, TRIVANDRUM. 3. THE SENIOR ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, KOTTAYAM. 4. KIDANGOOR GRAMA PANCHAYAT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, KIDANGOOR P.O., KOTTAYAM DIST. 5. JAMES JOSEPH, S/O.LATE JOSEPH, VALLITHOTTATHIL HOUSE, KOODALLOOR P.O., VAYALA (VIA), KOTTAYAM DIST. 6. REGI JAMES, S/O.JAMES JOSEPH, VALLITHOTTATHIL HOUSE, KOODALLOOR P.O., VAYALA (VIA), KOTTAYAM DIST. BY ADV.SRI.M.K.CHANDRAMOHAN DAS, SC, PCB ADV.SRI.V.G.ARUN, SC, KIDANGOOR GRAMA PANCHAYAT GOVT. PLEADER SRI.K.J.MOHAMMED ANZAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/04/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(c).No.13031 OF 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 11th day of April, 2008 JUDGMENT In this writ petition under Article 226, the petitioners who are residents of Ward No.1 of Kidangoor Grama Panchayat in Kottayam district challenge Ext.P6 circular of the Kerala State Pollution Control Board altering the distance Rules which had been prevailing under Ext.P5 previous circular in the matter of issuing consent /NOC for establishment and operation of stone crusher units. It is alleged that Ext.P6 circular has been issued producing the distance Rule drastically without considering the import of such changes - reducing the distance Rules from 250 meters to 100 meters. W.P.(C)No.6447/08 was another writ petition filed by the very same petitioners challenging the very same circular and the proposal by the Panchayat to grant licence to respondents 5 and 6 in that writ petition on the strength of Ext.P6 circular. 2. On considering the averments in this writ petition, I am of WPC.No.13031/08 2 the view that it is sufficient if this writ petition is also disposed of by a judgment in terms of Ext.P7 which is a copy of the judgment in W.P.(C)No.6447/08. 3. Though it will be noticed that some of the grounds of challenge raised by the petitioners against Ext.P6 circular are attractive, since the Pollution Control Board is yet to issue consent in favour of the entrepreneurs- respondents 5 and 6 and since the Panchayat has not yet processed their applications for licence, in my opinion it is sufficient if the petitioners are heard by the Panchayat as well as the Pollution Control Board before licence/consent is issued in favour of respondents 5 and 6. Writ petition is accordingly will stand disposed of issuing the following directions: The Pollution Control Board will consider the application for consent submitted by respondents 5 and 6 and take a decision after hearing the petitioners also. Similarly the Panchayat is directed to take a decision on the application for licence submitted by respondents 5 and 6 after hearing the petitioners also. The Pollution Control Board and the Panchayat are directed to inform the petitioners also of their WPC.No.13031/08 3 decisions on the application for consent/licences. If those decisions come to be against the petitioners, the petitioners will be at liberty to impugn those decisions on all available grounds including the grounds of challenge which they have raised in this writ petition against Ext.P6 circular. PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE JUDGE sv. WPC.No.13031/08 4