IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR FRIDAY, THE 26TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 5TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 14790 of 2010(W) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- V.A.THOMAS,VARIYATH HOUSE, MALIPURAM.P.O.,VALAPPU,NEAR JANATHA SAW MILL, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.B.KRISHNA MANI RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VAIDHYUTHI BHAVAN,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD,SUB STATION, MALIPPURAM.VYPIN,ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 4. THE CHIEF ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER, POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. POULOSE,MALIYEKKAL VEEDU, PROPRIETOR, JANATHA SAW-MILL,VALAPPU,ERNAKULAM 6. DENNY POULOSE, MALIYEKKAL VEEDU, PROPRIETOR,WOOD MASTERES, VALAPPU,ERNAKULAM. R1 TO 3 BY ADV. SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, K.S.E.B R4 BY ADV. SRI.M.K.CHANDRA MOHANDAS,SC,POLL.C.BOAR R5 & 6 BY ADV. SRI.S.SREEKUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: svs C.T.RAVIKUMAR, J ------------------------------ W.P.(C).NO. 14790 OF 2010 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 26th day of November, 2010. ------------------------------------------------ J U D G M E N T The 5th respondent is running a Saw Mill by name Janatha Saw-Mill in the adjoining property of the petitioner. The properties of the petitioner covered as per Exts.P1 and P2 are having an extent of 5.100 cents and an extent of 1.827 cents and 708 sq.links respectively and they are lying contiguously. The properties of the petitioner and that of the 5th and 6th respondents are conterminous on one side and the common boundary wall thereat lies on the western side of the petitioner's property and on the eastern side of the property belonging to the 5th and 6th respondents. This Writ Petition is filed mainly with the prayer to issue a Writ of Mandamus commanding the respondents 1 to 3 not to install any transformer on the western and south western side of the petitioner's property. The contention of the petitioner is that running of the said saw mill is posing health hazards and its hazardous nature made the Environmental Engineer, Pollution Control Board to issue Ext.P4 notice to the 5th respondent based W.P.(C).NO. 14790 OF 2010 2 on the inspection of the officials of the Board in the property belonging to the 5th and 6th respondents more particularly in the said saw-mill. The petitioner describes Ext.P4 as a report and in troth, it contains a report submitted in WP(C) No. 21345 of 2009 and a notice issued by the 4th respondent to the 5th respondent. Direction No.(d) therein reads thus:- “Suitable species of trees/green plants shall be planted in the space between in the compliance (sic.complainant's) residences and newly constructed workshed.” According to the petitioner, the attempt of respondents 5 and 6 is to make direction No.(d) an impossibility to perform and then to escape from its compliance besides causing further inconveniences and danger to the petitioner and his family members by getting a transformer installed in the small strip of land wherein the trees /green plants are directed to be implanted by the 4th respondent. 2. A counter affidavit has been filed in the Writ Petition by respondents 5 and 6. The 6th respondent is the son of the 5th respondent. According to them, they are possessing all the W.P.(C).NO. 14790 OF 2010 3 requisite licenses and permits for running the saw mill in question. That apart, it is submitted thereunder that they have already complied with the conditions stipulated as per Ext.P4. Moreover, it is specifically stated thereunder that installation of the transformer in the proposed location will not in anyway endanger the lives of the petitioner or his family members as alleged by the petitioner. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, counsel for the respondents 5 and 6 and also the Standing Counsel for respondents 1 to 3. As already noticed hereinbefore, the specific contention of the petitioner is that the very running of the said Saw Mill in question is posing health hazards. It is causing pollution both of sound and air. It has become virtually impossible for the petitioner and his family members to live on the said property on account of the indiscreet running of the saw mill by respondents 5 and 6, it is further contended. To support his contentions the petitioner has placed reliance on Ext.P4 report of the Environmental Engineer, Pollution Control Board that contained certain directions to the 5th respondent. In short, W.P.(C).NO. 14790 OF 2010 4 according to the petitioner the installation of the transformer in the proposed location is hazardous and liable to be prevented. At the very outset, I may make it clear that I do not propose to consider the contentions touching the pollution aspect since it is the subject matter in WPC No.21345/2009 before this Court and it is still pending. 4. Admittedly, the proposed location of the transformer lies within the property of respondent Nos.5 and 6. A scanning of the contentions in this Writ Petition would undoubtedly suggest that the grievance of the petitioner pertains to the said proposed location. According to the petitioner, respondents 1 to 3 had not considered any of the aspects mentioned above and that respondents 5 and 6 have influenced the authorities and it is on account of the same that they have taken a decision virtually acceding to their request to install the transformer in the aforesaid strip of land. It is contended that installation of the transformer in the said location would enable the 5th respondent to escape the liability to comply with the condition under the direction (d) in Ext.P4. However, the learned Standing Counsel W.P.(C).NO. 14790 OF 2010 5 submitted that the proposed location lies actually 1.5 metres away from the common boundary wall into the property of respondents 5 and 6 and installation of transformer at the said spot will not in anyway cause any threat whatsoever, as alleged by the petitioner. Evidently, installing the transformer at the said location would definitely leave sufficient space between the petitioner's residence and the newly constructed shed for implanting suitable species of trees/green plants. In this case, it is to be noted that it is common case that already there is a common boundary wall separating properties and location lies 1.5 metres away in to the property of the 5th and 6th respondents. It is pertinent to note that the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner 1 and 2 that even after installation of the transformer at the proposed location it will be energised only after obtaining approval from the Electrical Inspector. The learned counsel for the 5th and 6th respondent further submitted that the said respondents have already implanted saplings in the small strip of land in compliance with the direction(d) in Ext.P4 ie, within the 1.5 metres referred to earlier. In view of the facts thus W.P.(C).NO. 14790 OF 2010 6 obtained, I am of the view that there is no room for any further grievance to the petitioner. Taking into account, the aforesaid factual position, the rival contentions and also the submissions made by the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents 1 and 2, the Writ Petition is disposed of as hereunder: Respondents 1 to 3 may proceed with the proposal to install the transformer in the proposed location within the property of the respondents 5 and 6. However, they shall ensure that the transformer is installed only at a point, which is 1.5 metres away into the property of respondents 5 and 6 from the common boundary wall, ie, the compound wall situated on the western side of the petitioner's property and on the eastern side of the property belonging to the respondents 5 and 6, wherein they have already implanted saplings in terms of the direction(d) in Ext.P4 by the 4th respondent. This Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE ln