IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR TUESDAY, THE 25TH MAY 2010 / 4TH JYAISHTA 1932 WP(C).No. 9293 of 2010(J) ------------------------------ PETITIONERS: ---------------- 1. LISSY, W/O.GEORGE PHILIP, AGED 55 YEARS, CHAKKUMKAL HOUSE, KOZHENCHERRY MURI, KOZHENCHERRY VILLAGE, PATHANAMTHITTA. 2. CHACKO SAMUEL, AGED 65 YEARS, SAM SADANAM, KOZHENCHERRY, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. 3. T.C.PHILIP @ UNNI, S/O.CHACKO, AGED 69 YEARS, THOOMPUMPATTU CANAL VIEW, KOZHENCHERRY, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. 4. SIJU THOMAS, S/O.A.T.THOMAS, AGED 33 YEARS, IRATTOLIL HOUSE, KOZHENCHERRY, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY MR.BIJU ABRAHAM, ADVOCATE. RESPONDENTS: ------------------ 1. THE KOZHENCHERY GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE D.M.O, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. 3. THE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, REPRESENTED BY IT'S CHIEF ENGINEER, PATHANAMTHITTA. WP(C).No. 9293/2010 ...2... 4. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. 5. THE DISTRICT TOWN PLANNER, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PATHANAMTHITTA. 6. JOHN BABU SAM, S/O.JOHN, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, KUZHIKALAYIL HOUSE, KOZHENCHERRY.P.O, PATHANAMTHITTA. 7. MARY SAM, W/O.JOHN BABU SAM, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, KUZHIKALAYIL HOUSE, KOZHENCHERRY.P.O, PATHANAMTHITTA. BY MR.JACOB P.ALEX, ADVOCATE, FOR R6 & R7 MR.THOMAS ABRAHAM, ADVOCATE, FOR R1. MR.DIPU.R, ADVOCATE, FOR R1. MS.MERCIAMMA MATHEW, ADVOCATE, FOR R1. MR.K.S.HARIDAS, ADVOCATE, FOR R1. MR.V.RENJITH KUMAR, ADVOCATE, FOR R1. MR.M.K.CHANDRA MOHANDAS, SC, POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD FOR R3 MS. N. SUDHA DEVI, GOVERNMENT PLEADER. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 9293/2010 A P P E N D I X PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT. P1 : COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS ALONG WITH OTHERS TO R1 DTD. 28.1.10. EXT. P2 : COPY OF COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BY PETITIONERS ALONG WITH OTHERS TO R2 DTD. 29.1.10. EXT. P3 : COPY OF COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BY PETITIONERS ALONG WITH OTHERS TO R3 DTD. 3.2.10. EXT. P4 : COPY OF COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BY PETITIONERS ALONG WITH OTHERS TO R4 DTD. 3.2.10. 6TH & 7TH RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: EXT. R6(a) : ORDER No.C-1332/09 DTD. 19.1.10 ISSUED BY R5. EXT. R6(b) : COPY OF CONSENT No.ICO/PTA/641/2010 ISSUED BY R3. EXT. R6(c) : COPY OF NOC BEARING No.B2-817/10 DTD. 19.4.10 ISSUED BY THE ASST. DIVISIONAL OFFICER, FIRE & RESCUE SERVICES. EXT. R6(d) : COPY OF MINUTES OF MEETING CONVENED ON 19.3.10 BY R1. EXT. R6(e) : COPY OF DECISION (v)(3) DTD. 30.3.10 OF R1. // True Copy // P.A. to Judge. smp T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. --------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.9293 OF 2010 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 25th day of May, 2010. J U D G M E N T The petitioners are objecting to the grant of licence to a hollow brick manufacturing unit allegedly situated adjacent to their residential house. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel appearing for the panchayath, learned Standing Counsel for the Pollution Control Board, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 6 and 7 and the learned Government Pleader. 3. The respondents 6 and 7 have filed a detailed counter affidavit opposing the prayers in the writ petition. The unit in question is one to manufacture hollow bricks. The main objection raised by the petitioners is on the basis of the chance for sound pollution as well as air pollution. The petitioners seek for a direction to the 1st respondent to see that the industry run by the respondents 6 and 7 is not functioning without a licence. Further prayer made is that the respondents 1 to 5 may be W.P.(C) No.9293/2010 2 directed that no licence will be granted to the respondents 6 and 7 without considering the objection of the petitioners and others. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents 6 and 7 and learned Standing Counsel for the Pollution Control Board submitted that the Pollution Control Board has already issued consent to operate, which has been produced as Exhibit R6(b). Permission granted by the Fire and Rescue Services is produced as Exhibit R6(c). It is further pointed out that the respondents 6 and 7 have filed an application before the panchayath under the Kerala Panchayath Raj (Issue of Licence to Dangerous and Offensive Trades & Factories) Rules 1996, which is pending without any action in the light of the pendency of the writ petition. It is also submitted that an application has been filed before the District Medical Officer, 2nd respondent, which is also pending without any action in the light of the pendency of the writ petition. The main complaint raised by the petitioners can be considered by the Panchayath before the grant of licence by the Panchayath under the relevant Rules. Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of directing the W.P.(C) No.9293/2010 3 1st respondent Panchayath to consider the objections raised by the petitioners while considering the application for licence submitted by the respondents 6 and 7. The action shall be finalised within a period of one month. The 2nd respondent will also dispose of the application submitted by the Panchayath within the above stipulated period. No costs. T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR JUDGE smp