IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR MONDAY, THE 11TH APRIL 2011 / 21ST CHAITHRA 1933 WP(C).No. 6623 of 2011(C) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ SABU PAUL, AGED 41 YEARS, MANAGING PARTNER, MALABAR EXTRUSION ENGINEERS, VATTAKKUNNU, CHOTTANIKKARA P.O., MULANTHURUTHY. BY ADVS. SRI.V.S.CHANDRASEKHARAN SMT.RENI RASHEED KUM.D.MINI RAJAN SMT.LEKSHMI SWAMINATHAN RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. CHOTTANIKKARA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REP. BY THE SECRETARY, CHOTTANIKKARA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, CHOTTANIKKARA, PIN-682305. 2. KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, ERNAKULAM, PIN-682011. * ADDL.R3 IMPLEADED * ADDL.R3: ULAHANNAN THOMAS KARUKAPARAMBU, KARUKAPARAMBIL HOUSE, VATTUKKUNNU, CHOTTANIKKARA (P.O). * ADDL.R3 IS IMPLEADED VIDE ORDER DATED 25/3/2011 IN I.A.NO.5567/2011. R2 BY ADV. SRI.M.K.CHANDRAMOHAN DAS,SC,POLL.C.BOARD R3 BY ADV.SRI.BOBBY MATHEW KOOTHATTUKULAM THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/04/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C)No. 6623 OF 2011 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 11th day of April, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner who is conducting an engineering workshop in the name and style “Malabar Extrusion Engineers”, Vattakkunnu filed this writ petition mainly seeking for issuance of a writ of mandamus commanding the first respondent not to obstruct or disturb the lawful functioning of the said Engineering Workshop and also for issuance of a writ of mandamus commanding the respondent to renew the licence of the petitioner after its expiry. The further prayer is for issuance of writ of mandamus commanding the 2nd respondent to grant the licence to the petitioner on the basis of Ext.P12 application. Ext.P12 application would reveal that the petitioner has not obtained licence from the pollution control board. It is for the purpose of obtaining the requisite licence/consent from the Pollution Control Board that Ext.P12 application has been filed. At the instance of the petitioner, this court passed an interim order on 5.4.2011. That order was passed taking note of the very WPC.No. 6623/2011 : 2 : contention of the petitioner that earlier, the Pollution Control Board had required the petitioner to take certain remedial measures to prevent pollution and based on that he had taken all such remedial measures and despite the same, nobody from the pollution control board competent to verify the same, is conducting any inspection and in fact, they are not taking any step to issue the requisite consent letter despite the receipt of Ext.P12 application. After hearing all the parties this Court directed the competent officer under the second respondent Pollution Control Board to conduct an inspection in to the premises of the engineering workshop by name Malabar Extrusion Engineers and to file a report as per the said interim order. Based on the above direction the Environmental Engineer of the District Office, Ernakulam conducted an inspection of the said premises on 8.4.2011 and then, filed a report. In the report it is stated that Ext.P14 produced in this writ petition by the petitioner was not actually a direction given by the Pollution Control Board as contended by the petitioner whilst it was only a notice intimating the Board's intention to refuse the consent to WPC.No. 6623/2011 : 3 : operate the unit on account of the unsuitability of the site and the voice pollution potentiality of the unit. However, according to the petitioner on receipt of Ext.P14 he had submitted Ext.P15 reply that carried the following recital regarding the remedial measures to prevent all types of pollution:- (a) Increased the height of emission pipe by 4-5 Mtrs of Stand-by DG set which has already provided with integral acoustic enclosure at the manufacturing stage itself. (b) Though the sound pressure level of the DG set has brought within the permissible limit, yet a flex board of considerably large size has been erected at the eastern side of the building to further reduce the sound to the immediate neighbour. (c) The stand-by DG set is being used very sparingly only against occasional power failure which is very few and far in between. However, we once again assure that the same will not be used during the night. At the same, it is stated in the said report that after examining Ext.P15 reply and also the specific counter statements extracted above an order refusing to grant consent to operate has been served on the petitioner. It is stated in the report that based on the interim order an inspection was conducted on 8.4.2011 and, at the time of inspection the unit was not functioning. It is further stated therein that no location WPC.No. 6623/2011 : 4 : change or additional sound control measures were observed in the plant and that the flex board or exhaust pipe for DG set do not serve the purpose of sound control. Thus, it is obvious that in the inspection conducted by the competent officer based on the interim order dated 5.4.2011 it was found that the remedial measures taken by the petitioners are not sufficient to avert the nuisance. In short, the report submitted based on the direction of this Court would reveal the remedial measures taken by the petitioner are insufficient. When that be the reported position this Court will not be justified in compelling the Board to issue consent to operate the industrial unit without taking appropriate remedial actions. In the said circumstances it will be open to the petitioners to take appropriate remedial action to avert all types of nuisance and pollution and thereafter to intimate the said fact to the second respondent. Needless to say that in case after taking such remedial action the petitioner intimates the second respondent regarding the said aspect a competent officer under the second respondent shall conduct an inspection into the premises wherein the petitioner's engineering workshop WPC.No. 6623/2011 : 5 : situates within a week from the date of such intimation. It is further made clear that such inspection shall be conducted only after issuing notice to the petitioner and also the additional 3rd respondent. The entitlement or otherwise of the petitioner to obtain consent to operate based on Ext.P12 application would depend up on the outcome of such inspection. In case the petitioner takes appropriate and sufficient remedial measures then the consent to operate shall be issued without any further delay. Writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- (C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) jma //true copy// P.A to Judge