IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI WEDNESDAY, THE 26TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 5TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 WP(C).No. 32227 of 2008(J) -------------------------- PETITIONERS: --------------- 1. HINDUSTAN BLOCK RUBBER FACTORY, KALLISSERY.P.O, CHENGANNUR, REPRESENTED BY MANAGING PARTNER, T.S. SAJI MON, VATTAPARA THENNAMMAKKAL, NEAR FIRE STATION, KANJIRAPPALLY. 2. T.S. SAJI MON, MANAGING PARTNER, HINDUSTAN BLOCK RUBBER FACTORY, KALLISSERY.P.O, CHENGANNUR (VATTAPPARA THENNAMMAKKAL, NEAR FIRE STATION, KANJIRAPPALLY) 3. RIJU.V.M, PARTNER, HINDUSTAN BLOCK RUBBER FACTORY, KALLISSERY.P.O, CHENGANNUR (VATTAPPARA THENNAMMAKKAL, NEAR FIRE STATION, KANJIRAPPALLY) BY ADV. SRI.T.M.ABDUL LATHEEF SRI.A.MUHAMMED HASHIM RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, CHENGANNUR. 2. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHENGANNUR. W.P.(C) No.32227/2008 3. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHENGANNUR. 4. C.K. CHAKO (SALI), CHARIVUPARAMBIL HOUSE, KALLISERY.P.O, CHENGANNUR. 5. JOSEPHY ITTY (THAMPI), CHARIVUPARAMBIL HOUSE, KALLISSERY.P.O, CHENGANNUR. 6. UTHUPAN JOSEPH (RAJU), CHARIVUPARAMBIL HOUSE, KALLISERY.P.O, CHENGANNUR. ADV. SRI.S.SUBHASH CHAND FOR R4 TO 6 SMT.M.P.MARY FOR R4 TO 6 GOVT.PLEADER, SRI.BENJAMIN PAUL R1 TO R3. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.32227/2008 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXTS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.1635/2005 DT.7.6.2005. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.1636/2005 DT.7.6.2005. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE LICENCE NO.14238 DT.17.7.2006 ISSUED BY THE RUBBER BOARD. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN W.P.(C) NOP.8154/2008 DT.10.4.2008. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE COMPLIANCE REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE PANCHAYAT DT.9.5.2008. EXT.P6: COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE PANCHAYAT TO THE PETITIONER DT.25.10.2008. EXT.P7: COPY OF THE ORDER DT.29.10.2008 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN W.P.(C) No.31770/2008. EXT.P8: COPY OF THE CONSENT LETTER FILE NO.PCB/ALP/UCO-143/07 DT.25.3.2008 ISSUED BY THE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD. EXT.P9: COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD DT.NIL EXT.P10: COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3 DATED 27.10.2008. EXT.P10: COPY OF THE RECEIPT NO.90 DT.14.6.2007. EXT.P11: COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY DR.K.BALACHANDRAN. M.Sc., Ph.D., PRINCIPAL, KESARI SCIENCE COLLEGE DT.23.8.2008. EXT.P12: COPY OF THE ANALYSIS REPORT PREPARED BY GREENEARTH LABORATORIES. EXT.P13: COPY OF THE COMPLAINCE REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE PANCHAYAT DT.9.5.2008. EXT.P14: COPY OF THE POSTAL RECEIPT NO.1049 DT.5.10.2008. EXT.P14: COPY OF THE CONSENT LETTER NO.PCB/ALP/UCO-143/07 DT.13.11.2008 ISSUED BY THE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD. W.P.(C) No.32227/2008 EXT.P15: COPY OF THE CONSENT VARIATION ORDER NO.PCB/ALP/UCO- 143-07 DT.13.11.2008 ISSUED BY THE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD. EXT.P16: COPY OF THE POSTAL ACKNOWLEDGEMENT CARD. RESPONDENT'S EXTS: EXT.R6(a): COPY OF THE MASS PETITION DT.25.10.207 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE DISTRICT ENVIRONMENT ENGINEER, KSPCB, ALAPPUZHA. EXT.R6(b): COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DT.7.12.2007 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE CHAIRMAN, RUBBER BOARD, KOTTAYAM. EXT.R6(c): COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DT.17.12.2007 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE SECRETARY OF THIRUVANVANDOOR GRAMA PANCHAYAT. EXT.R6(d): COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DT.20.10.2008 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE PRESIDENT OF THIRUVANVANDOOR GRAMA PANCHAYAT. EXT.R6(e): COPY OF THE ORDER DT.26.12.2007 ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER, KSPCB, ALAPPUZHA. EXT.R6(f): COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DT.18.2.2008 OF THE DISTRICT ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER, KSPCB, ALAPPUZHA. EXT.R6(g): COPY OF THE NOTICE DT.27.12.2007 ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY, THIRUVANVANDOOR GRAMA PANCHAYAT TO THE PETITIONERS. EXT.R6(h): COPY OF THE NOTICE DT.26.2.2008 ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY, THIRUVANVANDOOR GRAMA PANCHAYAT TO THE PETITIONERS. EXT.R6(i): COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT DT.1.11.2008 IN W.P.(C) NO.31770/2008 SUBMITTED BY THE SECREATRY, THIRUVANVANDOOR GRAMA PANCHAYAT. EXT.R6(j): COPY OF THE LICENCE ISSUED DURING THE PERIOD FROM 1/4/2007 TO 31/3/2008 BY THE SECRETARY, THIRUVANVANDOOR GRAMA PANCHAYAT. EXT.R6(k): COPY OF THE COMPLAINTS DT.10.11.2008 SUBMITTED BY THE SECRETARY, ST.MARY'S KHNANAYA VALIYAPALLI BEFORE THE ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER, POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, ALAPPUZHA. W.P.(C) No.32227/2008 EXT.R6(l): COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BY THE ANGANADI WORKER OF ANGANVADI NO.142, WARD NO.VIII, THIRUVANVANDOOR GRAMA PANCHAYAT DT.10.11.2008, BEFORE THE SECRETARY, THIRUVANVANDOOR GRAMA PANCHAYAT. EXT.R6(m): COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DT.13.11.2008 SUBMITTED BY THE HEADMASTER OF GOVERNMENT U.P.SCHOOL, KALLISSERY BEFORE THE SECRETARY, THIRUVANVANDOOR GRAMA PANCHAYAT. EXT.R6(n): COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BY THE PRINCIPAL, VOCATIONAL HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, KALLISSERY, CHENGANNOOR BEFORE THE SECRETARY, THIRUVANVANDOOR GRAMA PANCHAYAT. EXT.R6(o): COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DT.13.10.2008 SUBMITTED BY THE HEADMISTRESS, ST.MARY'S LPS, KALLISSERY BEFORE THE SECRETARY, THIRUANVANDOOR GRAMA PANCHAYAT. EXT.R6(p): COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DT.20.11.2008 ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY, THIRUVANVANDOOR GRAMA PANCHAYAT. EXT.R6(q): COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DT.21.11.2008 ISSUED BY THE PRESIDENT, THIRUVANVANDOOR GRAMA PANCHAYAT. //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. ---------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 32227 OF 2008 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 26th day of November, 2008 J U D G M E N T ~~~~~~~~~~~ Balakrishnan Nair, J. The 1st petitioner is a partnership firm called Hindustan Block Rubber Factory. The petitioners 2 and 3 are its Managing Partner and Partner, respectively. They submit, they have the necessary statutory clearances from all the statutory authorities including the Local Grama Pananchayat and Pollution Control Board to run their industrial unit. They convert scrap rubber into crumb rubber in their unit, it is submitted. The consent of the Pollution Control Board which is valid up to 30.6.2009, is remaining in force. Earlier, when action was taken by the Pollution Control Board, this Court by Ext.P4 judgment, relaxed the requirement of establishing an effluent treatment plant for some time. Subsequently, within the time stipulated by the Pollution Control Board, the same was also established. So, at present there is no pollution caused by the petitioners' unit. While so, the Panchayat issued Ext.P5 communication to W.P.(C) No.32227/2008 2 stop the unit on the ground of pollution. The petitioner moved this Court and obtained Ext.P7 interim order staying that communication. While so, the local people led by respondents 4 to 6 are causing obstruction to the running of the factory. They are taking law into their hands and they are threatening the petitioners and their workmen. So, the petitioners moved the police by filing Ext.P10 representation. Alleging that the police did not take any effective action to render necessary police protection, this writ petition is filed. 2. The learned Government Pleader, upon instructions, submitted that the petitioners' unit is causing pollution even now. Foul smell is always lingering in the area. But, the police warned the party respondents not to take law into their hands or create any law and order problem and they were advised to go to appropriate authorities and seek remedies available to them, under the law, against the pollution. 3. The respondents 4 to 6 have filed a counter affidavit and also an additional counter affidavit stating that the W.P.(C) No.32227/2008 3 petitioners' unit does not have the requisite panchayat licence. In support of that submission, they relied on the communication issued by the Secretary and President of the Grama Panchayat, which are produced respectively as R6(p) and R6(q). They also produced the counter affidavit filed by the Panchayat in the writ petition, in which Ext.P7 interim order was passed. In the said affidavit also the Panchayat has asserted that the petitioner has not been issued with any D & O licence to run the unit. 4. The petitioner has filed a reply affidavit and also an additional affidavit dealing with the averments of the party respondents. The petitioners also relied on Ext.P10 receipt produced along with the reply affidavit, which would show that the Panchayat has received necessary fees for granting licence for a period of four years on 14.6.2007. In view of Ext.P10, it is submitted that the petitioner has licence to run the unit. 5. The fact that the petitioner has got clearance from the Pollution Control Board or consent from the said Board to operate his unit does not conclude the issue of pollution. It is W.P.(C) No.32227/2008 4 common knowledge that many industrial units having all the statutory clearances from the Pollution Control Board are still causing pollution. A classical example will be the industrial units in Eloor industrial area. All of them are run with the consent granted by the Pollution Control Board. Still, they are causing pollution and making the life of the local people miserable. In this case, the police have also supported the case of the party respondents that unit is found to cause foul smell in the locality. If the petitioners do not have licence for their unit, they have no legal right to run it. Since the said dispute is pending before this Court in W.P.(C) No.31770/2008, we are not expressing any final opinion on that. But, even assuming the petitioners are having licence issued by the Grama Panchayat, they do not have the right to run it causing pollution in the locality. The local people have a legal right to have a clean environment, which is a concomitant of the right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of the India. See the decisions of the Apex Court in Subhash v. State of Bihar [AIR 1991 SC 420], Shantistar Builders v. Narayan Khimalal Totame [1990(1) SCC 630], M.C.Mehta v. Union of India [2004(12)SCC 118] W.P.(C) No.32227/2008 5 and Virender Gaur v. State of Haryana [1995(2) SCC 577] 6. In the face of pollution, if the local people cause obstruction to run the unit, we feel that the remedy of the petitioner is not before the Police Station, but before the competent civil court. The civil court can take evidence and decide whether there is pollution and, if so, the same affects the life of the local people and grant appropriate relief to the petitioners. If the civil court orders are violated, the said court has necessary powers to address the police to render assistance to the petitioner. 6. In view of the disputed facts regarding the pollution caused by the petitioners' unit, this Court cannot grant any relief to them. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed without prejudice to the contentions of the petitioners and their right to move other forums for appropriate reliefs. But, it is made clear that this judgment will not affect the powers of the police to take action, in accordance with law, if any cognizable offecnce is reported. It is also clarified that the observations made by us in W.P.(C) No.32227/2008 6 this judgment will not bind the civil court, if any civil suit is filed before it, concerning the above matter. The court shall decide the matter only in accordance with the evidence adduced before it. (K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE) (M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE) ps