IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN THURSDAY, THE 21ST OCTOBER 2010 / 29TH ASWINA 1932 WP(C).No. 30565 of 2010(U) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- JOSEPH, S/O.KALLELIVEETIL PAPPU, KALLELIVEETIL, THIRUMUDIKKUNNU DESOM, KIZHAKUMURY VILLAGE, KORATTY EAST P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT-680 308. BY ADV. SMT.MEREENA JOSEPH RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT, STATE SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 2. THE KORATTY GRAMA PANCHAYATH REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRTARY, KORATTY GRAMA PANCHAYATH, KORATTY, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN-680 308. 3. THE KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, DISTRICT OFFICE, PONKUNNAM P.O., THRISSUR-680 002, REPRESENTED BY ITS ENVIORNMENTAL ENGINEER, OFFICE OF THE KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, PONKUNNAM P.O., THRISSUR-680 002. 4. ANTONY, S/O.DEVASSY, THIRUMUDIKKUNNU DESOM, KORATTY EAST, KORATTY KIZHEKKEMURI VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680 308. ADV. SRI.M.K.CHANDRA MOHANDAS,SC,POLL.C.BOAR FOR R3 SRI.SHEEJO CHACKO FOR R2 SRIA.G.UNNIKRISHNAN FOR R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P(C)No.30565/2010 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1. TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT IN O.S.NO.71/2008 ON THE FILE OF THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, CHALAKKUDY EXT.P2. TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ADDRESSED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE KORATTY GRAMA PANCHAYAT TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER. EXT.P3. TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED TO THE SECRETARY OF KORATTY GRAMA PANCHAYAT BY THE DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER, THRISSUR. EXT.P4. TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD DATED 30.6.2010 EXT.P5. TRUE COPY OF NO OBJECTION CERTIFICATE. EXT.P6. TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER OBTAINED IN O.S.NO.259/2010 FROM THE MUNSIFF COURT, CHALAKKUDY. EXT.P7. TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WRIT PETITION W.P(C)NO.22745/2010. EXT.P8. TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER IN W.P (C)NO.23312/2010. EXT.P9. TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON JUDGMENT IN W.P(C)NO.23312/2010 AND W.P(C)NO.24874/2010 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT DATED 18.8.2010. EXT.P10. TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER OF THE KERALA POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD. EXT.P11. TRUE COPY OF THE LICENCE ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER DATED 18.9.2010 EXT.P11(a) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER STATING NON ISSUANCE OF LICENCE TO THE PETITIONER. / TRUE COPY / P.S.TO JUDGE P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. ----------------------------------------- W.P(C).No.30565 of 2010 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 21st day of October, 2010 JUDGMENT Heard the learned counsel on both sides. 2. The petitioner was running a poultry farm in his own lands with the requisite permission of the second respondent local authority under the provisions of the Kerala Panchayat Raj (Issue of Licence to Dangerous and Offensive Trades and Factories) Rules, 1996. He was running the poultry farm in two sheds bearing door Nos.10/635 and 10/636. It appears that the 4th respondent, a neighbouring resident, objected to the petitioner running the poultry farm by filing a representation before the Kerala State Pollution Control Board. On receipt of the said representation the Environmental Engineer, Kerala State Pollution Control Board, Thrissur, conducted a local inspection. He found that on account of the petitioner running the poultry farm no nuisance or pollution is caused. However, the officer advised the petitioner to shift the second shed which is nearer to the complainant's residence to a site away from the first shed in the W.P(C).No.30565 of 2010 -:2:- western direction as can be seen from Ext.P10 report. Pursuant to Ext.P10 report, the second respondent Panchayat renewed the licence only in respect of the shed bearing door No.10/636. As regards the other shed, the petitioner was informed by Ext.P11(a) letter that the licence can be issued only after the petitioner complies with the directions in Ext.P10 to shift the shed. The petitioner contends that the direction in Ext.P10 is without the sanction or authority of law and that the Environmental Engineer or the Kerala State Pollution Control Board have no right or authority, after having found that there is no nuisance or pollution, to direct shifting of the poultry shed to another site. 3. The second respondent has filed a counter affidavit justifying Ext.P11(a) letter. It is contended that the said letter was issued in view of the recommendation in Ext.P10 report. 4. I heard Smt.Merina Joseph, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri.Sheejo Chacko learned counsel appearing for the second respondent and Sri.M.K.Chandramohan Das, learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent. It is evident from Ext.P10 report submitted by the Environmental Engineer that the running of the poultry farm in the shed bearing door W.P(C).No.30565 of 2010 -:3:- No.10/635 does not cause any nuisance to the complainant or result in pollution. As a matter of fact the Environmental Engineer had stated in categorical terms in Ext.P10 report that the 4th respondent's residence is about 15 metres away from the shed bearing door No.10/635. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents was not able to point out any provision of law empowering the Kerala State Pollution Control Board to direct that the poultry farm being run in one shed should be shifted to another shed after having found that the running of the poultry farm does not cause any pollution or result in nuisance to the neighbouring residents. In such circumstances it has to be necessarily held that the recommendation made by the Environmental Engineer in Ext.P10 report to shift the poultry shed bearing door No.10/635 to another location cannot be sustained. In the result I allow the writ petition, quash Ext.P10 in so far as it directs the petitioner to dismantle and put up the poultry shed bearing door No.10/635 in another location and direct the Secretary of the second respondent Grama Panchayat to reconsider the petitioner's application for licence having regard to the rest of the findings and observations in Ext.P10 report and W.P(C).No.30565 of 2010 -:4:- take an appropriate decision thereon expeditiously and in any event within two weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. P.N.RAVINDRAN, Judge. ahg. P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. --------------------------- W.P(C).No.30565 of 2010 ---------------------------- JUDGMENT 21st October, 2010