IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.J.CHELAMESWAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON WEDNESDAY, THE 15TH DECEMBER 2010 / 24TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 WA.No. 2080 of 2010() --------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN I.A. 14625 OF 2010 IN WPC.15795/2010 Dated 22/10/2010 .................... APPELLANT: PETITIONER IN WP(C) NOT PARTY IN IA.14625/2010 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- MURALEEDHARAN NAIR, SREENILAYAM, BEDICULAM, PULIMATHU POST. BY ADV. MR. R.T.PRADEEP RESPONDENTS: PETITIONER IN I.A. & RESPONDENTS IN I.A. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. K.R.USHASREE, PROPRIETOR, SAI EXPORTS ENTERPRISES, PEDIKULAM, PULIMATHU.P.O. 2. THE KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, OFFICE OF KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE ENVIRONMETNAL ENGINEER, KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, DISTRICT OFFICE T.C. 30/881, PETTATH, NEAR KARTHIKA THEATRE, PETTAH.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 024. R1 BY ADV. MR. N.P. PREMACHANDRAN, R2 ADV. MR. M.K. CHANDRAMOHAN DAS, POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J. CHELAMESWAR, C.J. & P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.A. No. 2080 OF 2010 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated, this the 15th day of December, 2010 JUDGMENT Ramachandra Menon J. The appellant is the petitioner in the Writ Petition, who approached this Court, seeking for a direction to be issued to the respondents 1 to 3 to restrain the functioning of the cashew factory of the 6th respondent in the Writ Petition, mainly in view of the alleged pollution; 'air' as well as 'water'. 2. The main complaint is that, the functioning of the establishment of the 6th respondent is without obtaining necessary licence and clearance from the authorities concerned, including the Pollution Control Board and that because of the illegal operation of the unit, the petitioner who is residing nearby is not in a position to have a peaceful living and his rights and liberties as guaranteed under the Constitution are very much adversely affected, which hence is sought to be intercepted. 3. When the matter came up before a learned Single Judge of this Court, an interim order was passed on 13th August, 2010, directing the second respondent to file an affidavit in answer to the various averments in I.A. 10614 of 2010, particularly as to the standards, if any, fixed for emission of air pollutants into the atmosphere and other incidental matters specified therein. W.A. No. 2080 of 2010 2 4. Subsequently, observing that, no such report was ever filed, another order was passed on 22nd September 2010, granting extension of time also ordering personal appearance, if the affidavit was not filed on or before the stipulated date. It is revealed from the proceedings that the Pollution Control Board conducted an inspection and filed a report, also producing copies of the relevant documents. It is stated that, various directions have been issued by the Pollution Control Board at different points of time, directing the 6th respondent in the Writ Petition to cure the defects pointed out, which however have been simply ignored; under which circumstances, the Pollution Control Board issued a 'stop memo' dated 09.09.2010, a copy which has been produced and marked as Ext. R2(f). It was in the said circumstances, that the 6th respondent in the Writ Petition filed I.A. No. 14625 of 2010, which came up for consideration before the learned Single Judge on 22nd October, 2010 and after hearing both the sides, the 'stop memo' issued by the Pollution Control Board [Ext. R2 (f)] was stayed until further orders, which forms the subject matter of challenge in the present Writ Appeal. 5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as the learned counsel appearing for the Pollution Control Board and also the 1st respondent (6th respondent in the Writ Petition) who is the petitioner in I.A. 14625 of 2010. W.A. No. 2080 of 2010 3 6. The learned counsel for the first respondent herein submits that, the factory was established years before; that several workers are engaged therein; that no pollution is being caused as alleged; that the factory is situated in a residential area and that there are so many similar factories in the area and none of these factories is causing any harm to the general public and no steps have been taken by the Pollution Control Board to have them closed down. It is also stated that, the present proceedings have been caused to be filed by the writ petitioner only because of the personal animosity with the said respondent. The learned counsel further submits that, on receipt of notice/memo issued by the Pollution Control Board, the said respondent had actually cured the defects pointed out; also submitting an application dated 23.03.2010 to conduct a re-inspection, which is stated as still pending. 7. On going through the materials on record, this Court finds that, Ext. R2(f) issued by the Pollution Control Board still stands and has not been subjected to challenge from the part of the contestant respondent, who has filed I.A. No. 14625 of 2010, wherein present interim order has been issued by the learned Judge on 22.10.2010. In the said circumstance, we find that, the interim order of stay now passed on 22nd October 2010, is never to sub-serve the main relief sought for in the Writ Petition and as such, we do not find any reason to have it sustained. W.A. No. 2080 of 2010 4 However, considering the nature of the contentions taken from either side and also taking note of the prejudice that could be caused to all concerned, including the workers who were being engaged in the unit, this Court finds that the matter requires to be dealt with by passing final verdict in the Writ Petition on an early date. In the above facts and circumstances, the interim order dated 22nd October, 2010 in I.A. No. 14625 of 2010 is vacated and the Registry is directed to post the Writ Petition for final hearing before the concerned Court in the next week. It is made clear that we have not expressed anything regarding the merits of the case involved. The Writ Appeal is disposed of as above. J. CHELAMESWAR, CHIEF JUSTICE P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE kmd