IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 29TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 8TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 4458 of 2005(E) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- C.K.AMBIKASUTHAN, SREE MUKUND, C.P.NO.X/615, PUTHIYAPARAMBU, CHIRAKKAL P.O. BY ADVS. SRI.DINESH R.SHENOY SRI.JOJO GEORGE RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KANNUR DISTRICT. 2. THE KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD REP.BY THE SECRETARY, POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER, KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, DISTRICT OFFICE, SOUTH BAZAR ROAD, PAYYANNUR 670 307. 4. THE CHIRAKKAL GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, O/O.CHIRAKKAL GRAMA PANCHAYATH, CHIRAKKAL, KANNUR-670 011. 5. M/S.UNIVERSAL PLOWOOD, C.P.NO.X/616, PUTHIYAPARAMBU, CHIRAKKAL, REP.BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, M.A.ABDULLA, S/O. MAMMU HAJI, RAYYAN, KODAPARAMBA WARD, KANNUR MUNICIPALITY, P.O.THANA, KANNUR - 670 012. R1 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. DILEEP MOHAN. R2 BY ADVS. SRI.BABU JOSEPH KURUVATHAZHA, SC, POLU.C. R3 BY ADV. SRI.M.K.CHANDRAMOHANDAS, SC FOR PCB. R4 BY SRI.M.SASINDRAN R5 BY SMT.SUMATHY DANDAPANI, SENIOR ADVOCATE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss W.P.(C) NO.4458/2005 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE MASS REPRESENTATION SUBMTITED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P2:- COPY OF THE MASS REPRESENTATION SUBMTITED BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT. P3:- COPY OF THE TELEGRAM ISSUED TO THE IST RESPONDENT. P4:- COPY OF THE TELEGRAM DTD. 11.9.04 ISSUED TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P5:- COPY OF THE NOTICE DTD. 25.10.2004 ISSUED TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT. P6:- COPY OF THE NOTICE DTD. 2.12.04 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT. P7:- COPY OF THE NOTICE DTD. 1.12.04 ISSUED BY TEH3RD RESPONDENT TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT. P8:- COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DTD. 22.11.2004 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT. P9:- COPY OF THE LAWYER NOTICE DTD. 9.12.04 ISSUED BY ADVOCATE GOPAKUMAR. P10:- COPY OF THE PETITIN DTD. 10.12.04 SUBMTITED BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT P11:- COPY OF THE PETITION SUBMTITED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE, THALASSERY. P12:- COPY OF THE CONSENT NO.PCB/KNR/A/F/05/04 DTD. 5.1.0 VALID UPTO 31.12.2005. P13:- COPY OF THE APPLICATION DTD. 22.1.05 SUBMITTED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT. P14:- COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 28.2.05 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT. P15:- COPY OF THE CONSENT VARIATION ORDER DTD. 1.2.05 ISSUED BY THE MEMBER SECRETARY OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P16:- COPY OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY VINOD BHATTATHIRIPPAD, ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER OS NO.487/04, MUNSIFF COURT, KANNUR. P17:- COPY OF THE REPORT SUBMTITED BY M.K.PRASAD ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER IN OS. NO.566/04, ADDL. MUNSIFF COURT, KANNUR. P18:- COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 22.9.04 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER'S WIFE BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT. P18(a): COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 5.10.04 ISSUED TO THE 5TH RESPONDENT. 2/- W.P.(C) NO.4458/2005 /2/ P18(b):- COPY OF THE APPLICATION DTD. 5.10.04 SUBMITTED BY NAMITHA BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT. P19:- COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR PERMIT SUBMITTED BY THE LANDLORD OF THE 5TH RESPONDENT DT. 10.9.04 AND THE BUILDING PERMIT ISSUED TO THE 5TH RESPONDENT. P20:- COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DTD. 4.1.05 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE SI OF POLICE, VALAPATTANAM. P21:- COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 15.2.05 SENT UNDER REGISTERED POST ACKNOWLEDGEMENT DUE BY THE ALLEGED UNIVERSAL PLYWOOD THOZHIL SAMRAKSHNA SAMITHI. P22:- COPY OF THE REPORT DTD. 2.3.05 IN THE RASHTRADEEPIKA DAILY. P22(a):- COPY OF THE NEWS REPORT IN the SUDINAM DAILY DTD. 1.3.05. P23:- COPY OF THE FIR NO.91/05 CHARGED BY THE VALAPATTANAM POLICE. P24:- COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 25.5.07 ISSUED BY THE COMMANDANT GENERAL, FIRE AND RESCUE SERVICES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM UNDER THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT IS PRODUCED. P25:- COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 14.5.07 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE DMO, KANNUR UNDER THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT. P26:- COPY OF THE REPLY DTD. 12.6.07 ISSUED BY DMO, KANNUR. P27::- COPY OF THE LTTER DTD. 15.5.07 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT UNDER THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT. P28:- COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 4.6.07 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS R5(1):- COPY OF THE PLAINT DTD. 1.11.04 IN OS. 566/04 FILED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT BEFORE THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, KANNUR. R5(1)(a):- COPY OF THE INJUNCTION ORDER DTD. 4.11.04 IN IA. NO.3316/2004 IN OS. 566/04 OF THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, KANNUR. R5(a):- COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT VIDE NO.224/04-05 DTD. 10.9.04 ISSUED BY THE SPECIAL GRADE SECRETARY, CHIRAKKAL GRAMA PANCHAYATH ALONG WITH THE PLAN AND DETAILS OF THE FACTORY BUILDING. R5(b):- COPY OF THE LICENCE NO.521/04-05 DTD. 21.10.04 ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY, CHIRAKKAL GRAMA PANCHAYATH. W.P.(C) NO.4458/2005 /3/ R5(4):- COPY OF THE APPLICATION DTD. 22.1.05 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT FOR ADDITIONAL HP MACHINERY. R5(5):- COPY OF THE ORDER NO.A3/124/05 DTD. 28.2.05 OF THE SPECIAL GRADE SECRETARY, CHIRAKKAL GRAMA PANCHAYATH. R5(6):- COPY OF THE LICENCE TO RUN THE FACTORY VIDE NO.CNR/02/155/92 DTD. 19.11.04 ISSUED BY THE JOINT DIRECTOR OF FACTORIES & BOILERS, KOZHIKODE. R5(7):- COPY OF THE PLAINT DTD. SEPTEMBER 2004 IN OS. NO.487/04 FILED BY NAMITHA AND ANOTHER BEFORE THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, KANNUR. R5(8):- COPY OF THE OBJECTION DTD. 3.5.88 GIVEN BY SMT. NAMITHA TO SOUTHERN VALLEY PRODUCTS IN BUILDING NO.555 WARD NO.9 OF CHIRAKKAL PANCHAYATH. R5(9):- COPY OF THE MASS REPRESENTATION DTD. 1.10.04 TO THE SECRETARY, CHIRAKKAL PANCHAYATH. R5(10):- COPY OF THE APPROVED LOCATION DRAWING OF THE 5TH RESPONDENT UNIT (ANNEXURE TO EXT.P12). R5(11):- COPY OF THE CONSENT VARIATION ORDER VIDE NO.FILE NO.PCB/KNR/GEN/1/2001 DTD. 1.2.05 ISSUED TO THE 5TH RESPONDENT BY THE KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD. R5(12):- COPY OF THE ORDER NO.B2.5790/04/K.DIS DTD. 6.1.05 ALONG WITH THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE GENERAL MANAGER, DISTRICT INDUSTIRES CENTRE, KANNUR. R5(13):- COPY OF THE INVOICE NO.25 DTD. 1.10.04 ISSUED TO THE 5TH RESPONDENT UNIT BY ST. THOMAS VENEERS, KOTTAYAM. R5(13(a):- COPY OF THE INVOICE NO. 376 DT. 6.10.2004 ISSUED TO THE 5TH RESPONDENT BY IBNA PLYWOODS & DOORS, KANNUR. R5(13(b):- COPY OF THE BILL DTD. 9.12.04 ISSUED BY JAS BOARDS , KANNUR TO THE 5TH RESPONDENT. R5(14):- COPY OF THE BALANCE SHEET DTD. 11.2.05 ISSUED TO THE 5TH RESPONDENT BY FEDERAL BANK, BRANCH VALAPATTANAM. R5(15):- COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF ACCOUNT DTD. 11.2.05 ISSUED TO THE 5TH RESPONDENT BY ANDHRA BANK, KANNUR BRANCH. R5(16):- COPY OF THE REPORT OF EXAMINATION DTD. 26.10.04 IN RESPECT OF THE 5TH RESPONDENT UNIT BY THE COMPETENT PERSON DEPARTMENT OF FACTORIES AND BOILERS, KERALA. W.P.(C) NO.4458/2005 /4/ R5(17):- COPY OF THE LAY OUT PLAN OF MACHINERY OF M/S. TREND WOOD TECH, PUTHIYAPRAMBA, KANNUR -8 AND CENTRAL EXCISE GODOWN.. R5(18:- COPY OF THE APPEAL SUBMITTED ON 11.1.05 BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT BEFORE THE MEMBER SECRETARY, POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R5(19)):- COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 11.1.05 FROM THE MEMBER SECRETARY, KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER, KANNUR. R5(20):- COPY OF THE PUBLICATION EFFECTED IN SUDINAM MALAYALAM DAILY DTD. 4.3.05. R5(21):- COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT VIDE NO.224/04-05 DTD. 10.9.04 ISSUED BY SPECIAL GRADE SECRETARY , CHIRAKKAL GRAMA PANCHAYATH. TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE tss ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 4458 OF 2005 ===================== Dated this the 29th day of November, 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioner's grievance is against the 5th respondent, a Plywood Manufacturing Industry. According to the petitioner, after the 5th respondent took over an existing industrial unit, without obtaining permits and licences, attempt was being made for enhancing the production capacity. Among the inadequacies pointed out by the petitioner, one is that the 5th respondent had not obtained consent issued by the 2nd respondent Board. Petitioner submits that complaining of the above, Exts.P1 to P4 representations were made, which resulted in Ext.P6 stop memo requiring the 5th respondent not to operate his industrial unit from 6 p.m to 6 a.m. It is alleged that, inspite of it, the industry was functioning. 2. Subsequently, Ext.P12 consent order was issued by the Board and it was at that stage, this writ petition was filed challenging Exts.P12 and to direct the 4th respondent not to grant any licence for the conduct of the 5th respondent's factory. It is also prayed that the 4th respondent should take steps for WPC No. 4458/05 :2 : demolishing constructions made by the 5th respondent. 3. As far as Ext.P12 consent is concerned, admittedly, the validity of the consent order expired as on 31/12/05 ad therefore the prayer seeking to quash Ext.P12 does not survive for consideration at this distance of time. 4. In so far as the order sought against the 4th respondent not to grant licence and for demolishing the constructions made by the 5th respondent are concerned, licence was already granted and construction made is on the strength of a building permit. Such being the case, there arise no question of granting these reliefs either. 5. However, referring to Ext.P28 produced along with IA 12438/10, counsel for the petitioner submits that even according to the Board, consent order issued expired on 31/12/2005 and though renewal has been sought by an application submitted on 23/2/2006, consent has not so far been issued. On this basis, counsel contends that the industrial unit is functioning without consent order and therefore, order should be issued for stoppage of further activities. 6. This contention of the petitioner is sought to be contradicted by the learned senior counsel appearing for the 5th WPC No. 4458/05 :3 : respodnent. Referring to the counter affidavit and also the averments in IA 14653/10, it is stated that despite having made applications and various reminders, the Board has not so far conducted inspection of the industrial unit or passed orders on the application made by the 5th respondent for renewal of the consent order. 7. In such circumstances, in order to redress the grievance of both the petitioner and the 5th respondent, it is ordered that if a valid and proper application has been made by the 5th respondent seeking renewal of the consent order issued to them, the 3rd respondent shall inspect the 5th respondent's industrial unit, which shall be done at any rate within 6 weeks of production of a copy of this judgment. On such inspection, if it is found that the 5th respondent satisfies all conditions for grant or renewal of consent, orders shall be passed on the application made by the 5th respondent. With this direction, the writ petition is disposed of. Needless to say that in case the application is rejected or in the event the conditions of the consent are violated, appropriate action will be taken by the 3rd respondent in accordance with law. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp