IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR.C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN FRIDAY, THE 28TH OCTOBER 2011 / 6TH KARTHIKA 1933 WA.No. 1610 of 2011() AGAINST THE JUDGEMENTIN WPC.8246/2011 Dated 26/08/2011 APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS: 1. SIXTOUS LOUIS,S/O.A.LOUIS, LALI BHAVAN,KADAPPAKKADA P.O, KOLLAM 691 008. 2. B.OMANAKUTTAN,PANAVILA HOUSE KOTTANKKARA VILLAGE, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.K.JAJU BABU SMT.M.U.VIJAYALAKSHMI SRI.BRIJESH MOHAN SMT.DHANYA CHANDRAN RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: 1. KOTTANKARA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, TKMC P.O, KOLLAM 691 005, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE CHIEF TOWN PLANNER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001. 3. THE TOWN PLANNER DISTRICT PLANNING UNIT, KOLLAM 691 001. 4. KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD REPRESENTED BY THE ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER, DISTRICT OFFICE, KADAPPAKKADA, KOLLAM 691 008. 5. THE DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER OF HEALTH KOLLAM 691 013. 6. THE JOINT DIRECTOR FACTORIES AND BOILERS DEPARTMENT KOLLAM 691 001. 7. A.NAZARUDEEN,A.K HOUSE, CHATHINAMKULAM,CHANDANATHOPPU P.O, KOLLAM 691 014. ADV. SRI.N.D.PREMACHANDRAN FOR R7 SRI.PRATHEESH.P FOR R1 GOVT. PLEADER SRI. LIJU V. STEPHEN S.C. FOR POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD SRI. M.K. CHANDRAMOHAN DAS. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, Ag. C.J. & P.S. GOPINATHAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.A. No. 1610 OF 2011 = = = = = = = = = = = = DATED THIS, THE 28TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2011. J U D G M E N T C.N. Ramachandran Nair, Ag. C.J. Appeal is filed against judgment of the learned Single Judge declining to interfere with the construction of cashew factory by the 7th respondent for the reason that approval was granted based on consent letters issued by neighbouring owners. Appellant's counsel submitted that appellants are also neighbours who have not given consent and so much so, they are entitled to raise objection against pollution caused by the 7th respondent. Counsel for the 7th respondent contended that the appellants came to the area later and the further contention is that since cashew factory is located at a low lying area unusual height of 90 feet is provided to the chimney to prevent any kind of pollution in the area. If chimney is given 90 feet height, then we do not think the apprehension of the appellants that factory can cause smoke pollution is correct. We record the submission of the 7th respondent that chimney has 90 feet height and based on the same the writ appeal is closed. It is for the appellant to verify whether the claim of W.A. 1610/2011 2 the respondent about height of the chimney is correct and if not, to move the 4th respondent to pass appropriate orders to verify pollution and if found in favour of the petitioners, to order appropriate modification for the chimney by 7th respondent. C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, (Ag. CHIEF JUSTICE P.S. GOPINATHAN, (JUDGE) KNC/-