IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH JUNE 2008 / 21ST JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 5832 of 2008(T) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ V.RAJENDRAN, NARAYAN VILASOM, EDANAND P.O., KARAMKODE, CHATTANNOOR, KOLLAM - 691 579. BY ADV. SRI.SAJITH KUMAR V. RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE DISTRICT ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER, POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 2. THE DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER, KOLLAM DISTRICT. CIVIL STATION, KOLLAM. 3. THE HEALTH INSPECTOR, CHATTANADU GOVERNMENT HOSPITAL, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 4. THE CHATTANNOOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH (SPECIAL GRADE), REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, CHATTANNOOR P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT. 5. SREEKUMARI, W/O.SREEKUMAR, PROPRIETOR, SREE SAI INDUSTRIES, MAHA HOUSE, COMPOUND, EDANAND, CHATTANNOOR P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT. 6. MADHUKUMAR, PROPRIETOR, KINGSTON INDUSTRIES, KULANAGARA PUTHENVEEDU, CHATTANNOOR P.O., KOLLAM. BY ADV. SMT.K.K.THULASY BHAI,SC,POLLUTION C.BOARD, FOR R.1 SRI.K.G.ANIL BABU FOR R5 SRI.P.N.PURUSHOTHAMA KAIMAL FOR R.4 SRI.JOHN VARGHESE FOR R6 R2 & 3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. K.R. DEEPA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------------------ W.P.(C) 5832 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated: JUNE 11, 2008 JUDGMENT The petitioner submits that the 5th respondent is running an industrial unit close to his residential premises. According to him, the unit is functioning without installing any pollution control measures. 2. It is his case that respondents 5 and 6 are closely connected and that they are engaged in the same line of activities. It is contended that both of them, in collusion with each other, misled the officials of the Pollution Control Board and made them inspect the facilities that are provided in the industrial unit of the 6th respondent and obtained Ext.P1 consent in relation to the industrial unit of the 5th respondent, even without conducting an inspection of the said industrial unit. Petitioner submits that Ext.P1 consent obtained by the 5th respondent is vitiated by fraud that had been played on the officials of the Board and hence is vitiated. 3. Learned counsel for the 5th respondent, on the other hand, WP(C) 5832/08 2 would dispute the allegations that are made and would assert for the position that the 1st respondent had inspected his unit and was satisfied about the pollution control measures that he had installed. It is stated that it was only thereafter Ext.P1 consent was issued by the 1st respondent. Petitioner is also referring to Ext.P12, a communication issued by the Board on 23.1.2008, informing the 5th respondent that his unit was functioning without taking the pollution control measures and was causing pollution problems to the people living close to the unit. It is stated that even after Ext.P12, the defects noticed are not rectified and the industrial unit is continuing to function as before. 4. The standing counsel appearing for the 1st respondent would submit that it was only on satisfaction of the facilities provided that Ext.P1 consent was issued. They also say that they conducted inspection on 9.1.2008 and based on the findings, Ext.P12 was issued. 5. Although the learned counsel for the petitioner has argued for invalidating Ext.P1 consent issued by the Pollution Control Board contending that it was vitiated by fraud, I do not think that on the WP(C) 5832/08 3 materials placed and in view of the disputed questions of fact canvassed by both sides, this court will be justified in arriving at a conclusion one way or the other. If at all the petitioner is aggrieved by the consent order, the statute itself provides for the remedy and the aggrieved party could have pursued those remedies. 6. Consent has been granted to the 5th respondent subject of course to the conditions that are prescribed by the 1st respondent. Since the petitioner has a serious complaint regarding the continued functioning of the industrial unit, which has been endorsed by the Pollution Control Board also in Ext.P12 issued on 23.1.2008, it is the bounden duty of the 5th respondent to rectify those defects, if not already done. This is a matter for the 1st respondent to satisfy himself by an inspection. While doing this, they will also take note of the submission made by the 5th respondent that the defects are rectified. 7. As already stated, the 5th respondent's unit is now functioning on the strength of Ext.P1 consent and it is the responsibility of the 1st respondent to ensure compliance of the conditions of Ext.P1. Therefore I direct that the 1st respondent WP(C) 5832/08 4 shall conduct an inspection of the industrial unit of the 5th respondent, and if he finds that any one of the conditions imposed in Ext.P1 is not complied with, it will be open to the 1st respondent to take appropriate action for the suspension of all activities in this unit until the defects are rectified. I also direct that the 1st respondent shall conduct periodic inspection of the 5th respondent's unit to ensure that the 5th respondent complies with the conditions of Ext.P1. It is directed that before inspection is conducted, the 1st respondent shall give the petitioner also a notice. If he so desires, he can also be present at the time of inspection. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE mt/-