IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE THURSDAY, THE 21ST FEBRUARY 2008 / 2ND PHALGUNA 1929 WP(C).No. 30593 of 2007(P) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ 1. EAPEN LUKE, AYYANKOIL, THELLIYOOR, PATHANAMTHITTA. 2. EAPEN CHERIYAN, VANCHIKAPPARA, -DO- -DO-. 3. GEORGE THOMAS, KALLURUMBIL, -DO- -DO-. BY ADV. SRI.V.G.ARUN RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. BINU K.ABRAHAM, MANAGING PARTNER, ST.GREGORIOUS METALS, THELLIYOOR, VENNIKKULAM, PATHANAMTHITTA. 2. KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 3. THE ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER, KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, PATHANAMTHITTA. 4. THE EZHUMATTOOR GRAMA PANCHAYAT, THELLIYOOR P.O., VENNIKKULAM, PATHANAMTHITTA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. BY ADV. SRI.P.HARIDAS ADV.SRI.M.K.CHANDRAMOHANDAS, SC, PCB THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(c).No. 30593 OF 2007 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 21st day of February, 2008 JUDGMENT The grievance which is voiced by the petitioners is that the third respondent is conducting a crusher unit without consent to operate from the Pollution Control Board. Pollution Control Board issued Ext.P6 to the first respondent informing him that during the inspection conducted, it was noticed that the functioning of the crusher unit is in violation of the conditions which were attached to the consent which had been issued to him. On the basis of Ext.P6, the Panchayat issued Ext.P7 stop memo directing the first respondent to stop the functioning of the unit until further orders. The case of the first respondent is that subsequently all the defects pointed out by Pollution Control Board were rectified and the Pollution Control Board has issued Ext.R1(g) consent. On the basis of Ext.R1(g), there is no reason why the stop memo should continue, so submits Sri.P.Haridas, counsel for the first respondent. WPC.No.30593/07 2 2. Sri.T.R.Harikumar, counsel for the petitioner submits that it was by concocting the signature of one sri.K.L.Luke, who was the original licensee of the metal crusher unit, after his demise that the first respondent was able to procure licence. According to him, the very constitution of the present partnership was only in the year 2003 and therefore the distance rules applicable on the date of the re-constitution of the partnership should be applied. Whatever that be, since Ext.P7 proceedings have been initiated by the Panchayat and the first respondent has submitted his explanation to Ext.P7, I am of the view that the Panchayat should be directed to finalise the proceedings which are seen initiated as per Ext.P7 with notice to the petitioners also. Panchayat will hear the petitioners also before deciding whether proceedings initiated under Ext.P7 should be made absolute or should be discontinued. It is open to the petitioners to urge all the grounds raised in the writ petition during hearing to be conducted by the 4th respondent. Hearing as directed above will be conducted and final orders will be passed by the Panchayat within four months of receiving a copy of this judgment. In the meanwhile, the Pollution Control WPC.No.30593/07 3 Board will ensure that all the directions issued by the Pollution Control Board to the first respondent are complied with by him and the decision of the 4th respondent pursuant to the above direction will be dependent on the question whether the first respondent is having a regular and absolute consent for operating the crusher unit from the third respondent. The Pollution Control Board is directed to hear the petitioners also before regular and effective consent is issued to the first respondent. PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE JUDGE sv. WPC.No.30593/07 4