IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 27TH AUGUST 2009 / 5TH BHADRA 1931 WP(C).No. 24491 of 2009(F) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- PROMOD V. JOHN, SON OF JOHN VARGHESE, PROPRIETOR OF PRABHA WIRE CUT BRICKS, KOLABHAGATH, VALANJAVATTOM P.O., THIRUVALLA. BY ADV. SRI.K.JANARDHANAN SRI.MANURAJ. K.J RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS MEMEBER SECRETARY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. ENVIRONMENT ENGINEER, KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, DISTRICT OFFICE, PATHANAMTHITTA. By SC M K CHANDRAMOHAN DAS THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/08/2009, ALONG WITH WPC NO. 21850 OF 2009 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J ........................................... WP(C).NOs.24491 & 21850 OF 2009 ............................................ DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2009 JUDGMENT WP(C) 21850 of 2009 is filed by a neighbour of the petitioner in WP(C) 24491 of 2009, who has a brick Kiln Unit. The clearance given by the Pollution Control Board to that unit ended on 31.12.2008. During the currency of that consent to operate, the Pollution Control Board concluded that the said consent had to be varied and made effective only till 15.3.2008. That decision of the District Officer of the Pollution Control Board was stayed by the appellate authority, but pending that order of stay, the operator's appeal became infructuous by the passage of time, since the original period of the consent to operate, expired on 31.12.2008, as already noted. 2. The neighbour, viz, the petitioner in WP(C)21850 of 2009, supported by the decisions of this court in earlier rounds and also a Commissioner's report in relation to the establishment in question, attempts to demonstrate that the establishment should be shifted from the thickly populated area and that there Wpc 24491/2009 2 could be no operation of the brick Kiln in the location except in a manner injurious to public health. This court had on an earlier occasion, issued judgment, which is Ext.P5 in WP(C) 21850 of 2009, directing the panchayat to look into whether the operator is carrying on the activities in accordance with law. However, this court noted that it was improper to interfere with running of the unit because at that point of time, the operator was carrying on the activities with the consent of the Pollution Control Board. 3. With the changed scenario, as of now, the operator does not have the consent to operate as issued by the Pollution Control Board. He has placed application for renewal of the consent. In WP(C) 24491 of 2009, he seeks a direction to the Pol Pollution Control Board to consider that application. 4. Consent to operate is not something that would be automatically generated on making an application. All relevant considerations and ground realities have to be taken note of, by the competent authority, while deciding to renew or not to renew a consent to operate. Pollution Control Board is an expert body and envisaged to be so. Therefore the grievance of the petitioner in WP(C) 21850 of 2009 and the materials placed by her in that Wpc 24491/2009 3 writ petition are also relevant for the Pollution Control Board to take a decision in the operator's application for renewal of the consent to operate. 5. Hence, it is directed that the concerned officer of the Pollution Control Board will take up the application of the petitioner in WP(C)24491 of 2009 and consider the question as to whether he has to be given a renewal for the consent to operate. In doing so, the petitioner in WP(C)21850 of 2009 and any other person entitled to be heard will also be heard. Having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances, it is ordered that Pollution Control Board obtains the views of the panchayat in the matter. Since the operator does not have a consent to operate, as of now, it is ordered that he shall not operate the unit unless and until Pollution Control Board and the panchayat clears the unit to have further operation. The operator's request and offer for updating the equipments in the establishment and for additional measures would also be considered in the process. All statutory authorities and other public officers who are respondents in these writ petitions will ensure that the directions contained in this judgment regarding the prohibition to operate the unit is strictly Wpc 24491/2009 4 enforced. The application for consent to operate will be decided untrammelled by anything stated in this judgment, but taking into consideration all relevant factors and facts as noted above. Let a decision come from the concerned officer of the Pollution Control Board within 45 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Writ petition ordered accordingly. THOTTATHIL B RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE lgk/31/8