IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 7TH JULY 2011 / 16TH ASHADHA 1933 WP(C).No. 13637 of 2011(D) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ R.S.PRABHAKAR,PROPRIETOR, FOREX DUTY PAID SHOP,KATTAKAYAM ROAD, PALA 686 575. BY ADVS. SRI.VIJU ABRAHAM, SRI.DINNY THOMAS, SMT.M.SRUTHY. RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,KOTTAYAM 686 001. 2. KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, DISTRICT OFFICE, KOTTAYAM 686 001. 3. PALA MUNICIPALITY,REP.BY THE SECRETARY, PALA 686 575. 4. P.P.AZEEZ PEECHATTUKUNNEL,PROPRIETOR, M/S.MAS CHICKEN CENTRE,KATTAKAYAM ROAD, PALA, KOTTAYAM 686 575. R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. RAJASREE R2 BY ADV. SRI.M.K.CHANDRA MOHANDAS, SC SRI.V.M.KURIAN, SC R4 BY ADVS.SRI.H.HAMZA ROWTHER, SRI.V.K.PEERMOHAMED KHAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/07/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.13637/2011 D APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: PHOTOGRAPH OF THE OPEN SPACE NEAR PETITIONERS SHOP. P2: COPY OF COMPLAINT DTD. 23/12/2010 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT. P3: COPY OF REPRESENTATION DTD. 03/01/2011 FILED BEFORE 2ND RESPONDENT. P4: COPY OF NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DTD. 4/1/2011. P5: COPY OF REPRESENTATION DTD. 20/01/2011 FILED BEFORE 1ST RESPONDENT. P6: COPY OF REPRESENTATION DTD. 26/03/2011 FILED BEFORE 2ND RESPONDENT. P7: CONSENT LETTER ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DTD. 29/03/2011. P8: INSPECTION REPORT BY 2ND RESPONDENT. P9: DIRECTIONS ISSUED TO 4TH RESPONDENT BY 2ND RESPONDENT DTD. 11/2/2011. P10: REPRESENTATION MADE TO THE GOVERNMENT DTD. 31/03/2011. P11: REPRESENTATION MADE TO THE GOVERNMENT DTD. 20/04/2011. P12: COPY OF COMPLAINT DTD.2/05/2011 FILED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: R2(A): COPY OF THE LETTER NO.PCB/KTM/COMP/52/2011 DTD. 11/02/2011 ISSUED TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT. R2(B): COPY OF THE LETTER NO.PCB/KTM/COMP/52/2011 DTD. 11/02/2011 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER. R2(C): COPY OF THE CONSENT TO OPERATE NO.PCB/TM/ICO/909/2011 DTD. 29/03/2011. Kss ..2/- ..2... WPC.NO.13637/2011 D R4(A): COPY OF THE SALE DEED REGISTERED BEFORE THE MEENACHIL SUB REGISTRAR OFFICE IN FAVOUR OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT. R4(B): COPY OF THE PERMISSION FOR CONSTRUCTION OF THE BUILDING IN THE NAME OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT ISSUED BY THE MUNICIPALITY. R4(C): COPY OF THE LOCATION SKETCH SHOWING THE ROAD ACCESS TO THE PROPERTY OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT. R4(D): COPY OF THE TERMS OF SETTLEMENT ENTERED INTO BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND THE 4TH RESPONDENT. R4(E): COPY OF THE RECEIPT SHOWING THE PAYMENT OF PROFESSIONAL TAX FOR THE PERIOD 2004-05. R4(F): COPIES OF THE RECEIPTS FOR THE PAYMENT OF LICENSE FEES TOWARDS CHICKEN BUSINESS AND CHARCOAL BUSINESS FOR THE PERIOD 2010-11. /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO JUDGE Kss ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ---------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 13637 OF 2011 ----------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 7th day of July, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner's grievance is against a chicken stall belonging to the 4th respondent which according to the petitioner is being conducted without complying with the conditions under Ext.P7, 'Consent to Operate' issued by the Kerala State Pollution Control Board. Petitioner makes specific reference to clause 3.5 of the 'Consent to Operate', which reads as under: “In case any complaint regarding foul smell is raised by the public, the existing enclosure with double layer green net shall be replaced with any solid material which blocks wing blow to that side.” Referring to Exts.P4 and P8 counsel submits that it has already been reported to the 2nd respondent that this condition is not complied with. Learned counsel also made reference to Ext.P12, a complaint specifically making W.P.(C) No. 13637 OF 2011 :2 : allegation about violation of the conditions contained in Ext.P7. While the counsel for the 4th respondent has denied the allegation, having regard to the nature of the controversy, I do not think it is necessary for this court to adjudicate on the disputed questions of fact. It is an admitted position that, Ext.P7 'Consent to Operate' is issued by the Board which incorporates various conditions and the responsibility rests with the Pollution Control Board to see that those conditions are complied with. If petitioner has a complaint that those conditions are not complied with, it is directed that on the production of a copy of this judgment, 2nd respondent should ensure that conditions of Ext.P7 consent are duly complied with by the 4th respondent. It is directed that if any of those conditions are found violated, necessary action will be taken against them. The writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE ul/-