IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI MONDAY, THE 17TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 26TH KARTHIKA 1930 WP(C).No. 28013 of 2007(I) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ SMT. KHADEEJAMMA K., PROPRIETRIX, M/S. MALABAR LIME INDUSTRIES, IDIYADKA, PERLA P.O., KASARAGOD. BY ADV. SRI.K.SRIKUMAR SRI.K.MANOJ CHANDRAN SRI.P.R.AJITHKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, PATTOM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 004, REPRESENTED BY ITS MEMBER SECRETARY. 2. THE ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER, KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, DISTRICT OFFICE, SOUTH BAZAR ROAD, PAYYANNUR-670 307. 3. THE ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER, KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, DISTRICT OFFICE, M.A.M.ARCADE, NEAR RAILWAY STATION, KANHANGAD-671 315. *ADDL.R4 IS IMPLEADED: R4. SRI.DURGAPARAMESWARI (ULLATHI) AND VISHNUMOORTHY KSHETHRA COMMITTEE, IDIYADKA, PERLA P.O., KASARAGOD REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT. (*ADDL.R4 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DTD. 4/08/2008 IN I.A.NO.9877/08) ADV. SRI.M.K.CHANDRA MOHANDAS, SC, KSPCB FOR R1 TO R3 SRI.P.SHRIHARI FOR ADDL.R4 SMT.P.VANI FOR ADDL.R4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.28013/2007 I APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 30/08/2003. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE NO.PCB/A/F/2631/04 DTD. 20/01/2004. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 06/01/2005. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 10/01/2005. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 25/05/2005. EXT.P6: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 15/07/2005. EXT.P7: COPY OF THE APPLICATION DTD. 01/02/2006. EXT.P8: COPY OF THE COVERING LETTER DTD. 28/02/06. EXT.P9: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 29/07/2006. EXT.P10: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 08/08/2006. EXT.P11: COPY OF THE REPLY DTD. 19/08/2006. EXT.P12: COPY OF THE LETER DTD. 01/02/2007. EXT.P13: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 06/02/2007. EXT.P14: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 08/03/2007. RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURE: ANNEXURE R3(A): COPY OF THE NOTICE NO.PCB/KSRD/NOC/1306/2003 DTD. 29/03/2005. /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO JUDGE Kss V.GIRI, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C).No.28013 of 2007 ------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of November, 2008. JUDGMENT Petitioner is aggrieved by the delay incurred by the Pollution Control Board in issuing orders on Ext.P7 application filed by the petitioner for renewal of the consent given to the petitioner to operate a lime manufacturing unit in a property, which is stated to be adjacent to the property of the additional 4th respondent. 2. Paragraph 8 of the statement filed by the Pollution Control Board reads as follows: “On 19.08.2006 a compliance report has been received based on which another inspection was conducted on 09.11.2006 and found that they have rectified all the defects In the meanwhile another complaint was submitted before the Chairman, Kerala State Pollution Control Board by sri.T.R.K.Bhatt, President of Sri.Durga Parmeswari and Vishnumoorthi Kshethra Committee apprehending pollution problem from the unit. The Chairman, Pollution Control Board has directed this respondent to instruct the petitioner to obtain consent from the Temple Authorities to consider their application for operating the unit and the petitioner has been W.P.(C).NO.28013/07 :: 2 :: instructed accordingly. In this context it may be noted that during the issue of first consent there were no complaints from the Temple Authorities. In the light of the fact that the Temple Authorities are still under protest, the Chairman thought it better to renew the consent after obtaining the Consent of them. Since the matter involves communal under currents, the Board is not able to take a decision mechanically without considering the complexities involved in the matter.” 3. It is not open to the Pollution Control Board to keep an application for renewal of the consent pending indefinitely. If the Pollution Control Board feels that a consent from the neighbouring property owner is necessary, it shall require the same as part of the conditions. Either way, orders shall be passed by the 2nd respondent. In the result, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 2nd respondent to pass orders on Ext.P7 application for renewal of the consent, after hearing the petitioner and the additional 4th respondent within six weeks the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. It is open to the petitioner to pursue the remedies that are W.P.(C).NO.28013/07 :: 3 :: available to her on receipt of the order from the Pollution Control Board in the manner aforementioned. Sd/- (V.GIRI) JUDGE sk/ //true copy//