IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 9TH DECEMBER 2011 / 18TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 WP(C).No. 26471 of 2011(H) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- P.V.JANARDHANAN NAMBIAR, S/O.A.V. NARAYANAN NAMBIAR, OMKARAM, MALIKAPRAMBU, KADACHIRA P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT-670 621. BY ADV. SRI.P.B.SAHASRANAMAN SRI.T.S.HARIKUMAR SRI.K.JAGADEESH RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE CHIEF ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER, KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, DISTRICT OFFICE, KAKKAD ROAD, 1ST FLOOR, GALAXY COMPLEX, KANNUR-670 002. 2. YADHUNATH NAMBIAR, HOLY PROPOS INDUSTRIES, SAGARIKA, MALIKAPRAMBU, NEAR KADACHIRA HIGH SCHOOL, KADACHIRA P.O., PIN-670 621. ADV. SRI.P.U.SHAILAJAN,SC,POLLUTION CONTROL FOR R-1 SRI.B.KRISHNAN FOR R-2 SRI.R.PARTHASARATHY FOR R-2 SMT.SEEMA FOR R-2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 26471 of 2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1. A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE CONSENT ESTABLISH GRANTED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT, DATED 28TH FEBRUARY,2008. EXHIBIT P2. A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE COMMUNICATION FROM THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 22/9/2011. EXHIBIT P3. A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE COMPLAINT MADE BY THIS PETITIONER BEOFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT ON 22/11/2011. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS EXT.R2(a)- TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR CONSENT TO OPERATE THE INDUSTRIAL UNIT EXT.R2(b)- TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER, KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD DATED 20.4.11 EXT.R2(c)- TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER BY 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 10.5.11 EXT.R2(d)- TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DULY RECOGNISED BY THE 1T RESPONDENT AFTER CONDUCTING AN INSPECTION OF THE PREMISES EXT.R2(e)- TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE BY 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 26.9.11 EXT.R2(f)- TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH SHOWING THE BUILDING BEFORE NOTICE FROM 1ST RESPONDENT EXT.R2(g)- TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH AFTER CLOSING THE BUILDING TO CONTAIN NOISE FOLLOWING THE NOTICE FROM THE 1ST RESPONDENT EXT.R2(h)- TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT BY THE ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DATED 25.11.11 EXT.R2(i)- TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER TOGETHER WITH THE INFORMATION FURNISHED BY THE KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD ON THE SUBJECT EXT.R2(j)- PHOTOGRAPH OF THE WALL ON THE EASTERN SIDE. /true copy/ P.A. To Judge ANTONY DOMINIC, J ....................................................... W.P.(C).26471/2011 .............................................. Dated this the 9th day of December, 2011 JUDGMENT Petitioner complains of an Industrial Unit “Holyprop industries” established by the second respondent, where plastic ropes, Twines etc., are manufactured. Ext.P1 is the consent to operate obtained by the second respondent. On the strength of Ext.P1, the Unit was established. The grievance projected in the writ petition is that the Unit is functioning without consent to operate. 2. The learned counsel for the second respondent submits that the Unit has already applied for consent to operate and that the Board has conducted an inspection and the process is almost complete. The learned Standing Counsel also submitted that the final orders on the application will be passed without any delay in the matter. 3. In such circumstances, I direct that after conducting a fresh inspection, if necessary, the first respondent will pass orders on the application made by the second respondent for consent to operate, as required under Section 21 of the Air (Prevention and Control of W.P.(C).26471/2011 2 Pollution) Act, 1981, within two weeks. Although there is a technical default on the part of the second respondent in as much as he has not obtained consent to operate, fact remains that the Industry is already functioning with about 30 employees. Though I do not order closure of the Unit as such, I direct that inspection be conducted immediately and if any violation is found, it will be open to the first respondent to require closure of the Unit itself. Thereafter, the Industrial Unit is permitted to function only if the defects, that are pointed out by the first respondent, are rectified. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge mrcs