IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 21ST AUGUST 2008 / 30TH SRAVANA 1930 WP(C).No. 19575 of 2008(E) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ CHERTHALA TALUK SMALL SCALE COIR MATTING PRODUCERS' CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD.NO.A-886, KALAVAMKODAM-PO, CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY P.V.REJULA. BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, REPRESENTED BY THE MEMBER- SECRETARY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER, KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, ALAPPUZHA. BY SC SRI. MK. CHANDRAMOHAN DAS THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/07/2008, THE COURT ON 21/08/2008 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J --------------------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).NO.19575/2008 -------------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 21st day of July, 2008 JUDGMENT The controversy in this writ petition is regarding the petitioner's claim for laying a pipe line from a water treatment plant to in its' premises, for the discharge of treated effluent water. As is seen from Ext.P5, after several rounds of litigations including writ petition, writ appeal and contempt, by this order finally permission was granted by the Panchayat. Even after the permit was issued, when obstruction was offered, the petitioner approached this court and filed Writ Petition No.17917/2006 for police protection. That writ petition was disposed of by Ext.P6 judgment, directing that if the petitioner files an undertaking before the Circle Inspector of Police, Cherthala and before the Pollution Control Board that they will lay the pipe line up to WP(c).No.19575/2008 2 the Kayal as directed by the Pollution Control Board, police shall give adequate police protection for laying the pipe line. Petitioner submits that, subsequent to the judgment, for a revised alignment, through which pipe is to be laid, PWD is granted sanction as per Ext.P7 and Ext.P8 indicates the revised alignment. It is stated that, there upon Ext.P9 request was made to the Pollution Control Board for issuing consent in terms of Ext.P7 and P8. That request made by the petitioner was rejected by the Pollution Control Board by Ext.P10 stating that, in view of the direction in Ext.P6 judgment, the consent in respect of the revised route cannot be considered. it is challenging Ext.P10, the writ petition has been filed. 2. The respondent Pollution Control Board has filed a statement justifying Ext.P10 and the contention therein appear to be that the revision of alignment sought for by the petitioner by Ext.P9 is impermissible in view of Ext.P6 judgment. 3. This court granted police protection as per Ext.P6 judgment, provided, the petitioner files an undertaking to WP(c).No.19575/2008 3 lay pipe through the route approved by the Panchaayt and Pollution control Board. However, that does not mean that if any better option is available to the petitioner, the petitioner is not entitled to seek a revised consent. If such a revised alignment is granted, at best it may be that the petitioner may not be eligible for the benefit of Ext.P6 and nothing more. 4. Therefore, the stand taken in Ext.P10 that, in view of Ext.P6 judgment the revision is impermissible, cannot be accepted. For that reason Ext.P10 will stand quashed. It is clarified that it will be open to the Pollution Control Board to consider and pass orders on Ext.P9 proposal submitted by the petitioner, untrammeled by Ext.P6. This, the Pollution Control Board shall do, as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within 4 weeks from the date of production of a copy of the judgment. Writ Petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC vi JUDGE WP(c).No.19575/2008 4