IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 19TH OCTOBER 2010 / 27TH ASWINA 1932 WP(C).No. 29152 of 2010(T) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------------- ASHARAF,S/O.SYED ALI,AROOPPARAMBIL HOUSE VENGOLA,ALLAPPARA.P.O,PARUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.RAJESH VIJAYAN RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------- 1. DISTRICT COLLECTOR,ERNAKULAM, CIVIL STATION,KAKKANAD. 2. VENGOLA GRAMA PANCHAYATH,VENGOLA.P.O, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT,REP.BY ITS SECRETARY. 3. SECRETARY,VENGOLA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, VENGOLA.P.O,ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 4. ENVIRONMNENTAL ENGINEER,KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD,DISTRICT OFFICE, GANDHI NAGAR,ERNAKULAM. 5. C.Y.MEERAN,PROPRIETOR,CHENTHARA HOUSE, ALLAPPARA.P.O. 6. A.M.AISHA BEEVI,W/O.MEERAN,CHENTHARA HOUSE,ALLAPPARA.P.O. 7. DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER, ERNAKULAM. ADV. SRI.M.K.CHANDRA MOHANDAS,SC,POLL.C.BOAR FOR R4 SRI.S.SREEKUMAR FOR R5 & 6 SRI.SIRAJ KAROLY FOR R2-3 GOVT.PLEADER SRI.DILEEP MOHAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.29152/10 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT PREFERRED BEFOR ETHE CHIEF MINISTER OF KERALA DT 7.6.2010. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DT 20.6.2009. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY APPLICATION PREFERRED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT SECRETARY DT 2.6.2009. EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT SECRETARY DT 25.7.2006. EXT.P5: COPY OF COMPLAINT PREFERRED BY THE PETITIOENR BEFORE THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM DT 2.7.2009. EXT.P6: TRUE COPY COMPLAINT OF THE PETITIONE BEFORE THE SECRETARY OF THE GRAMA PANCHAYAT ON 15.9.2009. EXT.P7: TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT PREFERRED BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT BY THE PETITIONER DT 2.7.2009. EXT.P8: TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT PREFERRED BEFORE THE ENVIRONMENT ENGINEER DT 9.4.2010. EXT.P9: LETTER ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER DT 21.1.2010. EXT.P10: TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS. EXT.P11: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE JFCM INS T O.2114/2007. EXT.P12: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DT 19.7.2010 ISSUED BY THE PANCHAYAT. EXT.P13: REPLY ISSUED BY THE PANCHAYAT DT 7.10.2009. EXT.P14: LETTER DT 22.6.09 ISSUED BY THE PANCHAYAT. EXT.P15: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD DT 6.7.2010. EXTS.OF R4 EXT.R4(a): TRUE COPY OF THE CONSENT TO ESTABLISH NO.PCB/CE/EK/622/2003 DT.4.12.2003. WPC NO.29152/10 -2- EXT.R4(b): TRUE COPY OF CONSENT TO OPERATE NO.PCB/EKM/IC- 38/R1/2010 VALID UPTO 30/6/2012. EXT.R4(c): TRUE COPY OF THE ANALYSIS REPORT. EXTS. OF R5 EXT.R5(a): TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF PERMANENT REGISTRATION ISSUED BY DISTRICT INDUSTRIES CENTRE. EXT.R5(b): TRUE COPY OF THE CONSENT ISSUED BY DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER DT 23.11.2009. EXT.R5(c): TRUE COPY OF the LICENCE ISSUED BY THE 2ND respondent PANCHAYATH DT 6.9.2010. EXT.R5(d): TRUE COPY OF THE CONSENT ISSUED by the POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD DT 3.8.2010. EXT.R5(e): TRUE COPY OF CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY DEPARTMENT OF FACTORIES ANDBOILERS. EXT.R5(f): TRUE COPY OF CERTIFICATE DT 29.9.2010 ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.R5(g): TRUE COPIES of SOME OFHT EPURCHASE ORDERS OF the FIRM. EXT.R5(h): TRUE COPY OF THE CONSENT OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD. EXT.R5(i): TRUE COPY OF ORDER DT 21.1.2010 BY THE OMBUDSMAN //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Rp ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 29152 OF 2010 (T) ===================== Dated this the 19th day of October, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is a resident of Vengola in Perumbavoor. In this writ petition, his grievance is against the Industrial Unit established and run by respondents 5 and 6 by name Surya Industries, manufacturing saw dust briquette. The case of the petitioner is that this industrial unit was functioning since 2003 without obtaining any licence from the Panchayat authorities, Factories and Boilers Department or the Pollution Control Board. It is stated that the industry has been functioning without licence causing extensive pollution to the environment. 2. These allegations have been denied by respondents 5 and 6 in the counter affidavit filed by them. It is their case that they have been functioning their Industrial Unit with all licences. They have also produced as Ext.R5(c) licence which is said to be a renewed one issued by the 3rd respondent, Ext.R5(d) consent to operate their industrial unit issued by the Pollution Control Board and Ext.R5(e) licence issued by the Industries and Boilers Directorate also have been produced. WPC No. 29152/10 :2 : 3. While the petitioner reiterates his plea that these are licences which are obtained for the first time, fact remains that, as on date, industrial unit possesses the licence mentioned above. If that be so, present functioning of the industrial unit, prima facie, does not appear to be obnoxious, in which event, the petitioner cannot object its functioning. 4. On the other hand, if as stated, licence could not have been granted or that the licence or consent granted is illegal, for any other reason, it is for the petitioner to pursue his statutory remedies before the appropriate authorities. Therefore, leaving it open to the petitioner to seek his statutory remedies available, this writ petition is disposed of. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp