IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR MONDAY, THE 4TH OCTOBER 2010 / 12TH ASWINA 1932 WP(C).No. 15516 of 2010(L) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- N.JAMALUDEEN, PONGATHIL KIZHAKKETHIL, WARD NO.XI,AATHIKKATTUKULANGARA.P.O, NOORANADU, PIN-690 504. BY ADV. SRI.M.R.SARIN. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. PALAMEL GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY,PALAMEL, NOORANAD. 2. POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD,REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,PATTOM,TRIVANDRUM. 3. ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER,POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD,ALAPPUZHA. 4. SAINUDHEEN,PONGATHIL KIZHAKKETHIL VEEDU, AATHIKKATTUKULANGARA.P.O,NOORANADU. *ADDL.R5 IMPLEADED: 5. SHAHARUDEEN, S/O. LATE SAINUDEEN, PONGATHIL KIZHAKKETHIL, ADIKKATTUKULANGARA, PALAMEL. *IS IMPLEADED VIDE ORDER DTD. 07/07/2010 IN I.A. 8779/2010. R1 ADV. SRI.N.UNNIKRISHNAN, R2 & R3 BY ADV. SRI.M.K.CHANDRA MOHANDAS, S.C, ADDL. R5 BY ADV. SRI.RINNY STEPHEN CHAMAPARAMPIL. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.15516/2010-l: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE R.3. TO THE R.4. DTD. 05/07/06. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE SETTLEMENT ENTERED BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND R.4. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE LICENCE ISSUED BY THE R.3. TO THE R.4. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE R.3. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE R.1. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: EXT.R1.: COPY OF THE LICENCE NO.60 OF 1978-79 ISSUED BY THEN EXECUTIVE OFFICER, PALAMEL GRAMA PANCHAYATH. EXT.R1.B: COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE NO. 09/01/02433/PMT/SSI/SSE DTD. 24/08/1982 ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT INDUSTRIES CENTRE, ALLEPPEY. EXT.R1.C: COPY OF THE LICENCE O.07/2010/11 DTD. 18/05/2010. EXT.R1.D: COPY OF THE CONSENT ORDER DTD. 29/04/2009 OF THE KERALA POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, ALAPPUZHA. EXT.R1.E: COPY OF THE COMPROMISE LETTER DTD.1 5/12/2006. EXT.R1.F: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 15/12/2006 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.R1.G: COPY OF THE LETTER NO. C2/6040/2010 DTD. 20/07/2010. EXT.R5.A: COPY OF THE LICENCE FOR THE YEAR 1978-79. EXT.R5.B: COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE R.4. TO THE R.3. EXT.R5.C: COPY OF THE LETTER ADDRESSED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE R.1. EXT.R5.D: COPY OF THE AGREEMENT EXECUTED ON 15/12/06 BETWEEN THE R.4. AND THE PETITIONER. EXT.R5.E: PHOTOGRAPHS OF M.S. WOOD INDUSTRIES. EXT.R5.F: COPY OF THE RENEWAL OF CONSENT TO OPERATE SAW MILL. EXT.R5.G: COPY OF THE LICENCE ISSUED FOR THE PERIOD 2010-2011. EXT.R5.H: COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DTD. 23/08/06 ISSUED BY DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES & COMMERCE. EXT.R5.I: COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY R.5. ON 22/06/2010 BEFORE THE R.1. EXT.R5.J: COPY OF THE APPLICATION DTD. 22/06/2010 IN THE PRESCRIBED FORM. EXT.R5.K: COPY OF THE CONSENT LETTER D. 22/06/2010. EXT.R5.L: COPY OF THE LICENCE DTD. 13/07/2010. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. Prv. T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. -------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.15516 OF 2010 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of October, 2010 J U D G M E N T ~~~~~~~~~~~ The petitioner approached this Court complaining that the 4th respondent is conducting a saw mill without obtaining licence from the 1st respondent and without permission of the 2nd respondent. It was also pointed out that inspite of complaint, no action has been taken from the Panchayat to stop the functioning of the saw mill. 2. The Panchayat as well as the additional 5th respondent have filed counter affidavits. There is a report filed by the 3rd respondent also. 3. The learned counsel for the Panchayat submitted that the saw mill was functioning for last 31 years and the deceased father of the 5th respondent was renewing the licence from time to time. The learned counsel for the additional 5th respondent submitted that the petitioner is his maternal uncle and the Writ Petition itself was filed after the death of the 4th respondent. From the averments of the counter affidavit of the 5th W.P.(C) No.15516/2010 2 respondent and that of the Panchayat, it is evident that the the saw mill was started in the year 1978 in the name and style M.S. Wood Industries. The deceased 4th respondent was running the saw mill with all licenses. In Ext.R5(f) is the renewal of consent to operate saw mill issued by the Pollution Control Board, which is valid upto 30.6.2012. R5(g) is the copy of the licence issued by the Panchayat which is valid from 1.4.2010 to 31.3.2011. 4. The learned counsel for the Panchayat submitted that a prescribed time schedule has been made applicable for running the saw mill and Ext.R1(G) has been produced in support of the above claim; a letter issued by the Secretary of the Panchayat, to the petitioner itself stating that instructions have been given for functioning of the saw mill from 6 a.m. to 6 p.m . 5. Along with the counter affidavit filed by the Panchayat Exts.R1(A) to R1(F) have been produced to show that the saw mill was being run with all licences from time to time and the same have been renewed from time to time. W.P.(C) No.15516/2010 3 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that if the saw mill is being run from 6 a.m. to 6 p.m, there will not be any grievance for the petitioner. The learned counsel for the additional 5th respondent submitted that it is only because of the personal differences the Writ Petition itself has been filed and there is no real grievance for the petitioner as they are close relatives and all the aspects with respects to the running of the saw mill was within his knowledge also. Whatever that be, as it is revealed that the saw mill has been functioning with all the licences and consent to operate from the Pollution Control Board, the petitioner cannot have any grievance in regard to the absence of any licence. 7. Therefore, it is not necessary to issue any particular direction to the Panchayat or Pollution Control Board. The submission made by the learned counsel for the Panchayat that instructions have been given to run the saw mill from 6 a.m. to 6 p.m. is recorded. Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. (T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE) ps/05/10